ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Utterly, utterly pathetic... if this is truly the level of your scientific understanding and reasoning, then we can get better arguments from a dog."[it] shows dead things""polystrate fossils."For fuck's sake Mike - you used to have a brain. Stop pissing God off by treating it as urinal for piss-poor thinking.

I am only angry because I see waste and bullshit. Both annoy the hell out of me - ask any of my past students. And I'm seeing a huge amount of the former and a good deal of the latter from you. With ICANT, it is very much the latter. I'd ignore ICANT except he insists on discssuing my area of expertise. I'd ignore you, except that I remember your old posts and now you frustrate the hell out of me. Short posts are sadly the result of 100+hr working weeks - the curse of running a rapidly growing business.Enough about me - *YOU* need to start thinking more, and not accepting the crap spouted by those who really do know nothing. Being able to spout off philosophical jargon does not cut it with me or anyone else who has grown up in maths/logic/philosophy. Your arguments here against evo are Hovind-scale stupid. I would simply expect far far better of you...ABE: Just to add I couldn't give a damn about how you interpret the fossils. I give far more respect to Peg for claiming that the Flud is behind the sorting of the layers, as that at least shows a modicum of thought. Saying that God put them that way out of a sense of aesthetics is at least acknowledging that there is something to be explained. To claim that fossils just show dead things is ignoring 95% of the information contained in the geological layers - information that has to be explained.This is not CD getting pissed at creationists - this is CD getting pissed at piss-poor thinking, whether by Christian, aetheist, Hindu, Bhuddist, Zoroastrian, Muslim, etc, etc...Finally, CD really hates it when MTW refers to himself in the third person - gets his goat, it does.And CD really really hates the fact that MTW has the initials MTW - those initials are holy to all true practitioners of relativity (Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler)Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Number 5 was - "Why does the universe appear to have one time and three space dimensions?" In other words, what are space and time,

---

Complete bullshit - it is not "in other words" in any way or form. I can't begin to imagine how anyone who thinks that they are sufficiently informed to report on the annual Strings conference, can draw such an inept conclusion.Yes, we do know what space-time is. No, we don't have the answer as to why it is 3+1, but we have many good ideas. And no, we don't have firm answers as to what lies behind space-time, but there are many clues to the next layer of the onion skin. But to claim that we don't know what space-time is, is simply wrong, untrue, lies, bullshit...

Ignore this, Jon, it's complete crap. There is no communication whatsoever, FTL or STL. It is "simple" quantum statistics. ICANT's bullshit is equivalent to claiming that coins must communicate with each other in order for them to generate a normal distribution approximation.

Sorry, wasn't actually paying much attention - everything seemed in hand Observations of clock in orbit from the Earth: red-shift due to SR time dilation, but blue-shift as the photons are falling to the Earth-based observer. If blue-shift is greater than red-shift, we will see the orbiting clocks running a bit faster.Observations of clock on Earth from orbit: red-shift due to SR time dilation, and red-shift as the photons are climbing up to the orbit-based observer. So in all cases, Earth clock both appears to be and *is* running slow.ABE: sorry, that's a bit of a "physicsy" answer - we can look at it from a space-time perspective if you like, but I'll have to leave that till later...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : ABE goes at the bottom, not in the middle

Yep. The interesting thing is we can treat the gravitational part as acceleration*, and this helps us unify the two separate effects as just one combined space-time effect.* standing still on the surface of the Earth, is equivalent to being accelerated at 1g upwards, but not actually going anywhere. This is because our world line on Earth - our natural motion through space-time - should be a path that looks like a 1g acceleration downwards. We see this briefly when we jump off things

You have already been corrected on this by several posters. Why do you insist on posting lies, ICANT? Why cannot you have the decent grace to thank those that corrected you (not me, I appreciate that my posts to you of late will not provoke an attitude of thanks) and go forward having learnt something? Why is your pride and arrogance so huge that you cannot admit to having been wrong on something?Once again, for the slow one at the back: acceleration is change in velocity. It is a vector. If the direction of a velocity changes but not its magnitude, then it has still accelerated. This is basic high school mechanics.

I help edit several dictionaries of science, physics, and mathematics, most available worldwide. I do not change the definition of anything. The words we use as scientists do not necessarily have the same meaning/definition as those words used by those outside science. So what?

Yes, it is. Simply look at the effect of the differing gravitational potential on the far side of the satellite orbit compared to the nearside, assuming worst case of the satellite, Earth, and Moon in alignment. A quick calc shows the gravitational time dilation between far sides of the orbit, owing to the Moon, is about 34,000 times smaller than the difference between orbit and the Earth's surface. I leave verification of this as an exercise.So, negligible. Anything else? Shall we check the effect of the Sun next?

I don't know... you're the one who thought that the moon would have an appreciable effect upon GPS and as we've seen, you're hopelessly wrong. Now, why does that not surprise me

Yep, that was the laugh-out-loud moment of his post. It doesn't matter how good the bullshit - one day, he'll always be amongst those that see right through it. For Guiri, that day has come Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Yep, you're in esteemed company. Essen was a great experimentalist, but my five year old has a better understanding of theory than Essen ever did. My weakest GR students would have laughed him out of the room.