Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Limits of Science
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 81 (304059)
04-13-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
04-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM Modulous has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 81 (304060)
04-13-2006 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
04-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
"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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM Modulous has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 81 (304061)
04-13-2006 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
04-13-2006 6:38 PM


Re: Creative Indeed!
"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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2006 6:38 PM Modulous has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 64 of 81 (304063)
04-13-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by simple
04-13-2006 9:03 PM


Re: Under the Nose
Suspended!
I will not be reinstating you to the science forums. Others may choose to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:03 PM simple has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 65 of 81 (304080)
04-13-2006 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by DominionSeraph
04-13-2006 5:42 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
Dude! Have you never heard of Doppler shift
You can quite easily measure stretched light and even tell how much it's been stretched by.
Besides which the space fighters in the star wars universe don't follow any known laws of physics anyway. They change direction in a vacuum by using wings instead of retro rockets. That's just plain weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-13-2006 5:42 PM DominionSeraph has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 1:41 AM PurpleYouko has replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 66 of 81 (304084)
04-13-2006 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
04-13-2006 6:07 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
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?
Rarely in all my life have I heard such a bunch of nonsensical ravings. The sad thing about it is that I think you actually believe it.
The light that we see came from a star. If that star was "spiritual" then why does it have an identical signiture to a physical star under todays physical laws.
That light tells us very specific things about the physics of that star at the point of the creation of the light. If the light had come from a non physical "spiritual" version of a star then the signature would have absolutely no reason to conform to the known laws of physics today and the light from more distant stars would be measurably different than that from closer stars whose light originated since your hypothetical change.
If the "change" as you put it took place a few thousand years back then the only stars that should behave normally are ones close enough for the new physical light to reach us in the necessary time scale. Your theory cannot account for distant stars showing identical physics to close stars.
Your theory simply doesn't hold up in light of the very real evidence.
I tend to agree with catholic Scientist. You are just pulling this crap out of thin air as you go along.
You have absolutely no reason to suggest these bizarre stories and absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is one shred of truth to any of them.
Its a bit like the kid who's caught with one hand in the cookie jar, crumbs all over the place and chocolate on his face who then makes up some unbelievable story about a monster from under the bed who actually ate the cookies. As his mom pokes holes in his story, he just keeps making up more and more far fetched stories to explain away the obvious evidence.
I see that AddminNosy has done exactly as the kids mom would have done too so i guess you won't be around to answer this post. Shame really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 6:07 PM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 11:41 PM PurpleYouko has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 67 of 81 (304093)
04-13-2006 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by PurpleYouko
04-13-2006 11:01 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
Hey PY how're ye doin?
And if I miss you this time I see you are ploughing the same furrow:
you are just pulling this crap out of thin air as you go along.
Charming i'm sure
This message has been edited by iano, 14-Apr-2006 04:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 11:01 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-14-2006 9:01 AM iano has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 81 (304112)
04-14-2006 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by PurpleYouko
04-13-2006 10:41 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
quote:
The light that we see came from a star. If that star was "spiritual" then why does it have an identical signiture to a physical star under todays physical laws.
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:
That light tells us very specific things about the physics of that star at the point of the creation of the light. If the light had come from a non physical "spiritual" version of a star then the signature would have absolutely no reason to conform to the known laws of physics today
As just explained, it had every reason.
quote:
If the "change" as you put it took place a few thousand years back then the only stars that should behave normally are ones close enough for the new physical light to reach us in the necessary time scale. Your theory cannot account for distant stars showing identical physics to close stars.
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:
You have absolutely no reason to suggest these bizarre stories and absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is one shred of truth to any of them.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-13-2006 10:41 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by DrJones*, posted 04-14-2006 2:29 AM simple has not replied
 Message 73 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-14-2006 9:27 AM simple has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 69 of 81 (304125)
04-14-2006 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by simple
04-14-2006 1:41 AM


Re: Not now, not ever
I think he has the bible
Which is not a science text and is absolutely worthless within the science forums.

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 1:41 AM simple has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 70 of 81 (304131)
04-14-2006 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by simple
04-13-2006 9:04 PM


You still need to tackle the original point raised
Is there a reason you replied 5 times with 5 single respsonses, rather than just once? Is your edit button broken?
No, circular reasoning. You assume it is old, assume the past was PO, then inyterpret things that way
It's not circular reasoning. IF the past was physical only then we should see convergence of evidence giving a consistent age for the world. There is no reason to suspect convergence should occur if the past was not physical. Since convergence occurs this massively supports that the universe was physical only for many billions of years.
He saw it using the same phyiscal present natural only assumptions, so relativity is relative only to the temporary PO universe.
I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense according to relativity. Try bringing this up the cosmology forums and see how far it gets you.
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.
You need to expand on this line of reasoning. Why should PO conclusions be as consistent as they are? This is science we are dealing with, the pattern must be explained. The most parsimonious explanation for consistent conclusions is that the past was PO and the universe is old.
You have yet to put forward a better explanation that actually deals with the evidence rather than simply saying 'The past worked differently in some undefinable way. It was spiritual in nature, though there is no positive evidence to suggest this. Then for some reason the physical and spiritual split and normal laws of physics resumed'. Its not an explanation because it still does not deal with the most important issue, the consistent pattern of age, the independent dating methods that agree with one another to such an extent.
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.
You can try appealing to magic if you'd like. However, there is no need. The evidence does become less abundant over time, but that does not mean that evidence does not exist, and that they do not form a consistent pattern of dates.
No magic need to be invoked, just simple science. Invoking magic is closer akin to your own explanation, not mine.
..... 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
OK, so you are now suggesting that that your alternative past scenario is not logical, it couldn't have happened and that science is not wrong? I doubt that.
You have a unifying principle about spiritual past and future. Its very nice but it means nothing right now. Such things as a spiritual future/past unifying all things have no evidence that would suggest they are true. So we can answer the question of Is It Science? With...no.

If you do get reinstated to the science fora one day - we'll need to tackle (once and for all) this niggling issue of convergence of independent lines of evidence. It's the only way this debate can ever move forward, as I commented in Message 57. As it turns out you are making it look like you are not interested in debate, but instead want to repeat your opinion, and that's surely not an image you want to maintain.
You've been suspended from the science fora - my own experience in such matters means I suspect you feel it is because your argument cannot be dealt with, so we suspend you. Let me assure you that the contrary is most definitely the case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 04-13-2006 9:04 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 5:48 AM Modulous has not replied

simple 
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 81 (304153)
04-14-2006 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Modulous
04-14-2006 2:47 AM


quote:
Is there a reason you replied 5 times with 5 single respsonses, rather than just once? Is your edit button broken?
Perhaps he knew that the time was short for his ability to respond, so he did it in bits?
quote:
You've been suspended from the science fora - my own experience in such matters means I suspect you feel it is because your argument cannot be dealt with, so we suspend you. Let me assure you that the contrary is most definitely the case.
So, the guy got waxed, not because the ideas can't be dealt with, but, because, on the contrary, they can, I see. Guess you like to respond to people who can't talk back?
quote:
You have a unifying principle about spiritual past and future. Its very nice but it means nothing right now. Such things as a spiritual future/past unifying all things have no evidence that would suggest they are true. So we can answer the question of Is It Science? With...no.
Speaking of no evidence that suggests it is true, why is it again your beliefs are so great? You say that they agree with each other, I think. Let's look at that. Decay rates, say, and continental drift. Both these things have a certain rate now. If I look at them in the light of a merged past, I see that both were rapid. Both agree with a young earth!!!! Looking at it in your baseless light we see they both take a coon's age. Yes, they agree, both are slow. That is the essence of the question here. So, the important issue needs addressing, how do you claim to KNOW it was PO!! Don't give us the old song and dance about the ols age assumptions agree!!!
quote:
You have yet to put forward a better explanation that actually deals with the evidence rather than simply saying 'The past worked differently in some undefinable way. It was spiritual in nature, though there is no positive evidence to suggest this. Then for some reason the physical and spiritual split and normal laws of physics resumed'.
You got it mixesd up. I think the arguement was, not that any 'normal' laws of physics resumed anywhere. The normal state was said to be the merged state of spiritual and physical. That was the past, that will be the future. The ONLY exception is the present that you base everything on! If you must debate, even with a poster no longer able to reply, try to get it right!
quote:
You need to expand on this line of reasoning. Why should PO conclusions be as consistent as they are? ...
Why should non Po conclusions be consistant? It has to do with the premises we start with, of course. I have to tell you this?
quote:
I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense according to relativity. Try bringing this up the cosmology forums and see how far it gets you.
I think that is a science forum. The poster was flushed, what are you talking about? But as far as relativity being relative to more than this natural universe, forget about it, that is all it deals with. Of course that's all it is relative to!
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. The curious can use the Peek Button to see original content.
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Sun, 16-April-2006 10:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Modulous, posted 04-14-2006 2:47 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by AdminModulous, posted 04-14-2006 9:29 AM simple has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 72 of 81 (304173)
04-14-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by iano
04-13-2006 11:41 PM


Re: Not now, not ever
Hi Iano.
I'm doing fine thanks. How about you?
It just frustrates me when people choose to utterly ignore the evidence that is freely available and then come up with some cockamamy story that has absolutely nothing going for it whatsoever. Anybody can just make up excuses as they go along. It doesn't make them true.
In a science thread they need to explain what it is that makes them think that way, not just make up ridiculous rubbish and present it as unsubstantiated fact. Even the bible doesn't back up his theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by iano, posted 04-13-2006 11:41 PM iano has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 73 of 81 (304184)
04-14-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by simple
04-14-2006 1:41 AM


Re: Not now, not ever
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.
Nice try but if you know the least little thing about physics then you will know that the instant of change from one frame to another would leave a telltale signature in the emissions from the star. We would have noticed this by now and guess what. We haven't.
Light effectively changed speed in this scenario. That makes for a pretty hefty dopler shift.
That light tells us very specific things about the physics of that star at the point of the creation of the light. If the light had come from a non physical "spiritual" version of a star then the signature would have absolutely no reason to conform to the known laws of physics today
So the star was both physical and spiritual? Is that what you are saying? yet you seem to be claiming that light transmission was almost instantaneous in those days. That means that light speed in the physical component was not the same as it is now. For that reason it would display a completely different signiture. Again we do not see this in reality.
If the "change" as you put it took place a few thousand years back then the only stars that should behave normally are ones close enough for the new physical light to reach us in the necessary time scale. Your theory cannot account for distant stars showing identical physics to close stars
No it didn't. All I can put this down to is an unfamiliarity with physics making him think it did. I'm sorry but physics just doesn't work that way.
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!
I can and did back it up with science. Besides which this is a science forum and the bible is inadmissable as evidence here. Anyway the bible doesn't even suggest such a strange theory so I don't even know where the idea was originated.
Let's look at the scenario in a bit more detail.
Simple claims that light before the change was near instantaineous. note it could not have been fully instantaneous otherwise after the change there would be no light in transit so we would not see distant stars at all.
From this we can infer that at the moment of change, the space between us and a star contained light that had previously been generated by the star, spread (very thinly) across a great distance.
Why very thinly?
Because as you and Simple both admit, the physical conditions in the star were the same as they are now so we can very easily calculate the rate of generation of photons of light per second. If this were to change then the signature would change and as it hasn't then we know this is true.
At the moment of change, light speed slows down so all the widely spaced photons continue their travel at a much slower speed. new photons generated in the star are now sent out into space much more densely (by the same mechanism as before and at the same rate of production as before. they are just moving slower)
So what would we expect to see from this scenario? In other words what does your theory predict?
If you are right then the light from distant stars should be many many orders of magnitude dimmer than that from closer stars since we are seeing a very many fewer photons (regardless of their signiture). At a point where the light that was generated since the change, reaches us, the star should suddenly get a whole lot brighter as we get a much denser bunch of photons getting here.
Do we see this?
Have you ever observed a star suddenly gain hundreds of orders of magnitude of luminosity when the elapsed time since your change reaches the exact same value as the light time from the star to us?
Has anyone?
The simple answer is no.
The luminosity of incredibly distant stars can be predicted based on their emission signiture and the theory of relativity. When measured, the luminosity is a pretty darn close match for the predicted value.
Your thoery predicts otherwise so it is well and truly busted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 1:41 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 04-15-2006 1:51 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 74 of 81 (304187)
04-14-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by simple
04-14-2006 5:48 AM


Consider yourself suspended
Interestingly your last posts here (ie in October)coincided remarkably with simple's suspension time.
Having left the forums as soon as simple was reinstated, you once again appear when simple gets suspended, defending simple's PoV.
I believe I mentioned to simple that I tend to look for patterns and find coincidences difficult to accept, and the simplest explanation seems to be that you are one and the same person. Since we know that simple has a history of creating multiple accounts, I am suspending you, sciguy, pending further investigation by a more experienced moderator (AdminJar is good with this kind of thing).
This message has been edited by AdminModulous, Fri, 14-April-2006 02:42 PM

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by simple, posted 04-14-2006 5:48 AM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-14-2006 9:33 AM AdminModulous has not replied

PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 75 of 81 (304189)
04-14-2006 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by AdminModulous
04-14-2006 9:29 AM


Re: Consider yourself suspended
Aw nuts!!
Now he can't try to explain his way out of the dilema that I left him with in my last message.
Ah well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by AdminModulous, posted 04-14-2006 9:29 AM AdminModulous has 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