One problem the scientific community has with creationist theory [Archive]

John21

11-12-2006, 02:22 AM

One of the theories floating around the creationist community in the quest for a unified theory resulted from an idea generated from the following:

What we observe as material bodies and forces are nothing but shapes and variations in the structure of space. Particles are just schaumkommen (appearances). The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist. (Erwin Schrodinger, on Quantum Theory / Wave Mechanics)

To make a long theory short, the idea is that consciousness constructs time. So as an example, imagine the ocean with the waves rolling in. What we really see is space and motion, our consciousness interjects the element of time to describe the motion of space, but in and of itself, time does not exist.

At first glance this may seem purely semantics, but its ramifications extend into the heart of modern physics. It would mean replacing the idea of space and time with space and motion. And this might not seem like such a giant leap, but for those of you who are aware of the problems of bringing gravity into the equations, you might appreciate the significance.

When you look at the Newtonian definition of gravity, (F = G m1m2/r2) and then look at the formula for Force (force = mass * acceleration) and finally consider the definition of acceleration {a = (v-u)/t} you can see the significance that time plays in the foundation of physics.

To replace time with motion would require a complete paradigm shift in modern physics, but it could lead to a unified theory.

Has the scientific community rejected this idea? No. They have enough integrity to refrain from rejecting an idea/theory unless it can be proven false. But I can't say they've accepted it. Some are exploring it but not many - superstring is the theory of the day at a doctoral level.

There's one problem with the theory that I think causes a general reluctance in exploring the idea. If you replace the element of time with wave-motion, you are eventually led to the conclusion that a 'butterfly effect' occurred 13.9 billion years ago. So while it may be true, I think the idea of determining the past with the same accuracy we can predict the weather, causes just a bit of hesitancy.

arahant

11-12-2006, 04:25 AM

You're high right now, aren't you? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

What would your definition of 'motion' be?

John21

11-12-2006, 05:05 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You're high right now, aren't you? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

What would your definition of 'motion' be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to wave motion, so scalar waves of quantum theory would work.

Just remember its describing matter in terms of spherical waves in continuous space, rather than the field theory of matter as continuous spherical fields in space-time.

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 06:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're high right now, aren't you? (not that there's anything wrong with that)

What would your definition of 'motion' be?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to wave motion, so scalar waves of quantum theory would work.

Just remember its describing matter in terms of spherical waves in continuous space, rather than the field theory of matter as continuous spherical fields in space-time.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey. i am a dumb creationist. can you please break down your thread so i can understand what you are really trying to say? what does replacing time with motion really mean? how is this thread a problem with creationism. sorry, didnt get it. please explain

MidGe

11-12-2006, 07:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
hey. i am a dumb creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What else? In vino veritas! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

siegfriedandroy

11-12-2006, 08:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey. i am a dumb creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What else? In vino veritas! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

in wine truth? i am dumb.............pero me gusta vino! y morality is real- death to hitler and all his fuc*in associates. my (belated) grandfather's best friend's head was blown off b/c of Hitler. that was wrong and i hope the fu*ker is rotting in hell right now. i hate him, and if you are indifferent to him, or any like him (stalin, mao, hundreds of others), i hope you burn with him. morality is real, and not just in prod's (confused) head

vhawk01

11-12-2006, 11:52 AM

Prodigy54321

11-12-2006, 01:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey. i am a dumb creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

What else? In vino veritas! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

in wine truth? i am dumb.............pero me gusta vino! y morality is real- death to hitler and all his fuc*in associates. my (belated) grandfather's best friend's head was blown off b/c of Hitler. that was wrong and i hope the fu*ker is rotting in hell right now. i hate him, and if you are indifferent to him, or any like him (stalin, mao, hundreds of others), i hope you burn with him. morality is real, and not just in prod's (confused) head

[/ QUOTE ]

it is very real to you...just as it is very real to me..yours is no better, no worse than mine..

as for hitler suffering for an eternity...I don't believe that is fair..even for such an evil person...he deserves to not exist..no be unable to harm the world any more...I do not relish is unnecessary pain...I guess you do?..I would also view that as evil.

CityFan

11-12-2006, 01:25 PM

As a mathematician, I can't quite grasp what your message is here.

I mean, physicists are well aware of the problems of treating time separate from space, and relativity took a massive step towards a better description.

Even if this "space and motion" idea does lead to a slightly different set of equations for describing space on the macro or micro level (and btw, how do you have motion without time?) I don't understand your claim about a butterfly effect 13.9 billion years ago. What do you mean by that?

Surely the whole idea of the butterfly effect is that ANY slight perturbance in a chatoic system can lead to a massively different state in the future. What is the significance of 13.9 billion years?

John21

11-12-2006, 05:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand your claim about a butterfly effect 13.9 billion years ago. What do you mean by that?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was a poor example on my part. What I was trying to convey was the lack of determinism possible in a system that would have had something like 10^100 or so wave interactions since the big bang.

As to your question of time: if you accept that matter doesn't exist as a particle but rather as a wave structure in space which gives rise to the appearance of a particle at its wave-center - that wave-center then becomes your reference point. With that wave-center as your reference, I don't think it's really a question of trying to describe motion without time, as much as it questions how you can even interject the function of time. As far as my understanding goes, you could define motion from relative wave amplitude, but not time.

BTW: My objective with the post wasn't to propose a Unified Theory, but rather to point out that the mainstream scientific community will not consider a theory that concludes: because it exists outside the confines of time - absolute reality is unknowable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing main-stream science - it only concerns itself with what is provable. I'm just suggesting that Reality might not be completely cooperative with that definition.

soon2bepro

11-12-2006, 06:10 PM

Time is our way of measuring change when related to other change. It doesn't exist without change. Just like length, width, and height don't exist without objects for us to relate to each other.

I don't see how it contradicts any of the fundamental physical laws or even major theories.

Neither do I see how it adds in any way to ID.

soon2bepro

11-12-2006, 06:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
BTW: My objective with the post wasn't to propose a Unified Theory, but rather to point out that the mainstream scientific community will not consider a theory that concludes: because it exists outside the confines of time - absolute reality is unknowable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing main-stream science - it only concerns itself with what is provable. I'm just suggesting that Reality might not be completely cooperative with that definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science never says "this is how things are". It just says "this is how things might be".

Science is based on experience. If something works the same way when tested in a similar way, one uses that experience to try and have more control over and knowledge of reality.

Science doesn't expect to reach any absolutes. If it does, all the better. Something "proven" isn't absolute. It's just more likely to be true or partially true, than other hypothesis about the same subject.

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 06:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Science never says "this is how things are". It just says "this is how things <font color="green">probably are until we find a better explanation</font>".

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey. Friendly neighborhood redefiner, overall nit, creative kook. Carry on.

soon2bepro

11-12-2006, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to convey was the lack of determinism possible in a system that would have had something like 10^100 or so wave interactions since the big bang.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see this lack of determinism you're talking about. Nobody said it was as simple as A+B = C. Of course there's been countless interactions and events leading to the state of the universe today. And of course the chaos theory applies. Please enlighten me as I don't get your point.

soon2bepro

11-12-2006, 06:54 PM

Thanks, that was a good correction.

John21

11-12-2006, 07:58 PM

soon2bepro,

The original intent of my post, namely, "One problem the scientific community has with creationist theory," has been lost. I take full blame considering I spent more time talking about the trees than the forest, but I would like to make an attempt to get it back on track.

So forgetting the actual workings of such a theory, let me ask a question:

If time does not exist, are there any popular scientific models that propose such a scenario?

My point being that if ultimate reality is not quantifiable and measurable with the current tools and definitions modern science employs, will they even explore the theory? Or are they limited to theories they have the tools to solve?

soon2bepro

11-12-2006, 08:34 PM

I think most top scientific experts on the field and related fields understand that time is but the measurement of change, or motion if you will. This is not to say that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't necessarily have to be a constant. But for practical purposes science considers it a constant.

It's not that they won't consider such a theory - It's just that there's no reason for them to. This subject falls more in the philosophy department than the science one.

Finally, I still don't get your original point. What is this problem that the scientific community has with the creationist "theory"?

John21

11-12-2006, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think most top scientific experts on the field and related fields understand that time is but the measurement of change, or motion if you will. This is not to say that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't necessarily have to be a constant. But for practical purposes science considers it a constant.

It's not that they won't consider such a theory - It's just that there's no reason for them to. This subject falls more in the philosophy department than the science one.

Finally, I still don't get your original point. What is this problem that the scientific community has with the creationist "theory"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Namely, that the scientific community only considers theories that can be verified and tested.

I'm not knocking science for taking this approach or that they claim in any way that they're not. All I'm saying is that if the nature of reality has an element that we can't verify and test - science won't be able to explain absolute reality.

But I think metric did a better job than I have at posing this question.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post8025673 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8025673&an=0&page=0#Post 8025673)

JimNashe

11-12-2006, 11:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that if the nature of reality has an element that we can't verify and test - science won't be able to explain absolute reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we can't test or verify something, can we say it exists?

And also, you propose a new theory, but what new experimental results should we expect from your theory?

FortunaMaximus

11-12-2006, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

All I'm saying is that if the nature of reality has an element that we can't verify and test - science won't be able to explain absolute reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we can't test or verify something, can we say it exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh. Job or Löb?

John21

11-13-2006, 12:12 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't test or verify something, can we say it exists?

[/ QUOTE ]
I might be not be understanding your question the way you intended it, but I would say that the forces of gravity existed before Newton verified them. And this kind of goes to my point - the scientific community couldn't say they existed because they hadn't been verified. But just because science can't or hasn't verified something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.

[ QUOTE ]
And also, you propose a new theory, but what new experimental results should we expect from your theory?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in several replies, I wasn't proposing a new theory.

jogsxyz

11-13-2006, 12:19 AM

Creationist theory was postulated by some dude who lived thousands of years ago, thought the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.

soon2bepro

11-13-2006, 12:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]
But just because science can't or hasn't verified something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is aware of this. But are you suggesting that this helps creationism? I still don't get your original point.

John21

11-13-2006, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But just because science can't or hasn't verified something doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science is aware of this. But are you suggesting that this helps creationism? I still don't get your original point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that it necessarily helps creationism. Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

luckyme

11-13-2006, 01:07 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why use the term 'theories' if it doesn't fit science, that just leads to equivocation messes.
Let's say they 'found' something. How do they validate for others that differentiates if from "son of sam' experiences? Using no scientific method.

luckyme

MidGe

11-13-2006, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationism explores absolutely nothing, it simply makes very silly statements without any foundation.

thylacine

11-13-2006, 01:18 AM

John21 said: [ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is preposterous. Do you have anything to back up this claim, or are you just referring to thoroughly discredited hoaxes such as so-called "creation science" and "intelligent design"?

FortunaMaximus

11-13-2006, 01:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
John21 said: [ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is preposterous. Do you have anything to back up this claim, or are you just referring to thoroughly discredited hoaxes such as so-called "creation science" and "intelligent design"?

[/ QUOTE ]

thylacine...

Are you simply incapable of original thought and flexibility? It seems so.

John21

11-13-2006, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
John21 said: [ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is preposterous. Do you have anything to back up this claim, or are you just referring to thoroughly discredited hoaxes such as so-called "creation science" and "intelligent design"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one theory some creationists are exploring:
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html

luckyme

11-13-2006, 01:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This is one theory some creationists are exploring:
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, as long as they don't use concepts like 'spheres' and 'causes' which are concepts science can study... you need something beyond science, that science can't test, if I remember your original claim.

luckyme

soon2bepro

11-13-2006, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying that it necessarily helps creationism. Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophy can explore the ramnifications of these hypothesis (let's not call them theories, as luckyme pointed). I'm still pretty sure they don't help creationism in any rational way.

John21

11-13-2006, 01:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one theory some creationists are exploring:
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, as long as they don't use concepts like 'spheres' and 'causes' which are concepts science can study... you need something beyond science, that science can't test, if I remember your original claim.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

What science can't test isn't the theory, it's the consequences of the theory being true. All I'm implying is that if the truth of a proposed theory resulted in the conclusion that the universe/existence was 'created' the mainstream scientific community has shown an overwhelming reluctance to pursue it.

soon2bepro

11-13-2006, 01:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
All I'm implying is that if the truth of a proposed theory resulted in the conclusion that the universe/existence was 'created' the mainstream scientific community has shown an overwhelming reluctance to pursue it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, are you saying that the mainstream scientific community is biased against creationism?

If so, I have to say bs.

einbert

11-13-2006, 03:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
If we can't test or verify something, can we say it exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure as hell hope so, as almost every person in the civilized world relies every day on things they wouldn't be able to test, verify, or explain properly.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 09:41 AM

That makes a bit of sense to me. It also sounds a bit like the ideas behind string theory, where they are moving away from the idea of the usual 3+1 dimensions being the be all and end all of reality. I don't really know anything about string theory though.

I think theoretical physicists ARE interested in dicovering the true nature of the universe, even if it implies that forecasting is virtually impossible. I mean, we already have chaos theory, that deals with the properties of systems that are too complicated to forecast, even if the underlying equations are known exactly. That's still a lot of fun, and I wonder what interesting things we could discover about a chaotic universe.

In summary, maybe I have more faith in the intellectual integrity of the scientists than you do - at least in this field.

What confused me was your reference to creationism in the OP - I took that to mean religious creationism, and I still can't see the relevance of that to a unified theory.

Galwegian

11-13-2006, 11:22 AM

I think that this post is strong evidence for a creationist type explanation for the universe. If evolution was true, such waffle would long ago have been made extinct.

thylacine

11-13-2006, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
John21 said: [ QUOTE ]
Just that creationism is exploring theories as to the nature of reality that the mainstream scientific community won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is preposterous. Do you have anything to back up this claim, or are you just referring to thoroughly discredited hoaxes such as so-called "creation science" and "intelligent design"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one theory some creationists are exploring:
http://quantummatter.com/articles_html/body_point.html

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL, just as I thought. You don't have anything to back up your claim. You were obviously bluffing and I called you. Pass the sugar!

CityFan

11-13-2006, 12:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]

What science can't test isn't the theory, it's the consequences of the theory being true. All I'm implying is that if the truth of a proposed theory resulted in the conclusion that the universe/existence was 'created' the mainstream scientific community has shown an overwhelming reluctance to pursue it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling to imagine what such a theory would look like. Since you say that there is one, could you provide a reference and a brief explanation of how it implies a creation?

John21

11-13-2006, 03:05 PM

Creationism is simply one way of searching for absolute reality. It's based on the premise that the universe was created and explores theories that would support that premise. Is there any proof to support its premise - no. That's why creationists are exploring theories.

This whole approach is not in anyway different than the approach mainstream science is taking in its quest to explain reality. They just have a different premise: that reality is composed of indivisible particles. About 2500 years ago Democritus proposed the idea that if we keep chopping matter up in to smaller and smaller pieces we'll eventually end up with some indivisible structure that will be the ultimate building block of the universe. Well, mainstream science is still at it, even adding extra dimensions to explain where that elusive entity could be hiding.

It's not like some physicist found a one-dimensional string lying on the floor and asked what it could be. The whole idea of super-string/M-U theory is conjecture. It's a theory proposed to explain the phenomena of existence based on the premise that all matter has at it base an indivisible unit. It wasn't deduced from what's known and observable, it was proposed to explain what is known and observable.

Creationism isn't a dogma, it's an approach to answering the question: what is the nature of absolute reality? It's methods are indistinguishable from mainstream science, it simply starts with a different premise.

The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition. -Einstein

soon2bepro

11-13-2006, 03:30 PM

It is much different. Creationists as you say seek to prove that something is the way they believe. Mainstream scientists are just trying to find out how things are, no matter their personal interests about conclusions.

luckyme

11-13-2006, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Creationism isn't a dogma, it's an approach to answering the question: what is the nature of absolute reality? It's methods are indistinguishable from mainstream science, it simply starts with a different premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Along the lines of this one on string theory from the site you posted in the Black Hole thread --

[ QUOTE ]
If the Large Hadron Collider does create black holes, not only will it prove that extra dimensions of the universe exist, but the radiation that decaying black holes emit could yield clues that help finally unite all the current ideas about the forces of nature under a "theory of everything."

[/ QUOTE ]

Using scientificly "indistinguishable methods" what can you point to that will predict an outcome and a test for it on the basis of creationism?

luckyme

John21

11-13-2006, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Creationism isn't a dogma, it's an approach to answering the question: what is the nature of absolute reality? It's methods are indistinguishable from mainstream science, it simply starts with a different premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Along the lines of this one on string theory from the site you posted in the Black Hole thread --

[ QUOTE ]
If the Large Hadron Collider does create black holes, not only will it prove that extra dimensions of the universe exist, but the radiation that decaying black holes emit could yield clues that help finally unite all the current ideas about the forces of nature under a "theory of everything."

[/ QUOTE ]

Using scientificly "indistinguishable methods" what can you point to that will predict an outcome and a test for it on the basis of creationism?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you accept the current definition of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. You are then forced to conclude that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward.

Let there be light! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

FortunaMaximus

11-13-2006, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Let there be light!

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. I'm reminded of that old Asimov short story where they built a supercomputer that was capable of thinking. They asked it the purpose of the Universe. It outlived the species that built it and continued on puzzling over the problem.

Guess what its ultimate answer was? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

John21

11-13-2006, 05:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Let there be light!

[/ QUOTE ]

Heh. I'm reminded of that old Asimov short story where they built a supercomputer that was capable of thinking. They asked it the purpose of the Universe. It outlived the species that built it and continued on puzzling over the problem.

Guess what its ultimate answer was? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maxwell's Demon?

"... if we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics."

FortunaMaximus

11-13-2006, 05:27 PM

Hmm. I'll have to think more about that one. The implications anyway. But, yeah, it's a possibility. There should be a consistent harmony between A and B, or a multitude. As for how many elements it would take for a stable multiverse... I don't know. What seems initutive is that this wouldn't be an infinite concert of Universes, but would grow infinitely.

A Fibonacci series has no logical endpoint.

thylacine

11-13-2006, 06:27 PM

John21 said:[ QUOTE ]

Maxwell's Demon?

"... if we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trolling again? This has nothing to do with your thread, nor with your bizarre agenda. It is an example of an interesting and illuminating question posed by scientists and resolved by scientists. I won't spell out the details, but the resolution amounts to an identification between entropy and information.

CityFan

11-13-2006, 07:24 PM

My problem with this is that I don't see how it is possible, through scientifc method, to differentiate a created universe from a "natural" universe, or whatever the alternative is described as. Whatever the structure and nature of the universe, it could just as well be created or exist of its own accord, surely?

I don't think it is productive to try to address a metaphysical question through science, which inherently studies the physical.

Moreover I think most scientists accept that, and don't worry about it. The goal of science (other than to get your name on a few papers and never have to do a real job) is to find models that explain the observable reality wihtout recourse to divine intervention. That doesn't mean there is no divine intervention, but divine intervention takes away all the interesting questions.

John21

11-13-2006, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
John21 said:[ QUOTE ]

Maxwell's Demon?

"... if we conceive of a being whose faculties are so sharpened that he can follow every molecule in its course, such a being, whose attributes are as essentially finite as our own, would be able to do what is impossible to us. For we have seen that molecules in a vessel full of air at uniform temperature are moving with velocities by no means uniform, though the mean velocity of any great number of them, arbitrarily selected, is almost exactly uniform. Now let us suppose that such a vessel is divided into two portions, A and B, by a division in which there is a small hole, and that a being, who can see the individual molecules, opens and closes this hole, so as to allow only the swifter molecules to pass from A to B, and only the slower molecules to pass from B to A. He will thus, without expenditure of work, raise the temperature of B and lower that of A, in contradiction to the second law of thermodynamics."

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trolling again? This has nothing to do with your thread, nor with your bizarre agenda . It is an example of an interesting and illuminating question posed by scientists and resolved by scientists. I won't spell out the details, but the resolution amounts to an identification between entropy and information.

[/ QUOTE ]

>In a response to luckyme, I referred to white holes, and commented "let there be light."

>FM then referenced an Asimov story. I assumed he was referring to a story were due to entropy the universe was coming to an end, and the computer answered "let there be light."

>FM asked if I knew what the computer's answer was. Since I was already assuming it was a counter to the impending doom brought on by the 2nd law of td - I offered, what I thought, was a slightly humorous, although to the point, answer.

Was it off topic to the thread? sure. Was I trolling? hardly.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to my bizarre agenda.

MaxWeiss

11-14-2006, 02:51 AM

For crying out loud, stop giving such sucky arguments. Creationism is not an approach similar to science. And since you need it to be spelled out, here it is.

While there is some "science" which is pseudoscience or flawed in some other fashion but still passes as "science" for those who are unskilled at rational thought and the nature of science, most of science and all the popular scientific theories are DERIVED from evidence. Now occasionally one must make the leap from the data to a possible conclusion which is not necessarily directly derived, but the flaws inherent in such a leap are usually weeded out by further testing and application of the scientific method in a narrower scope, as it relates to the problem at hand.

Creationism STARTS with a premise which is completely out from left field. Science DERIVES its left-field theories as reasonable deductions from EVIDENCE. They may not be right, often they are in fact conjecture, and some of them are certainly oddball, but they come from proper use of the scientific method, whereas creationism starts with a premise and derives its so called "evidence". That's not science.

A big part of the problem you also see with god folk is that they have to conceptually grasp a theory in order for it to be acceptable. Nature may in fact "not only be queerer than we suppose, but queerer than, in principle, we CAN suppose." This is why we have these seemingly odd physics explanations, because we use the mathematical representations to solve the questions, and then must derive the physical manifestation of these necessary conclusions and that manifestation is just flat out confusing. But just because we don't, or even can't, understand it in no way diminishes it, or makes it even close to as likely and good an explanation as god.

Are we done being stupid yet??? I don't enjoy purposely offending people, but when I see a spade, I call it a [censored] spade.

And shame on you for not putting that quote form Einstein in proper context, especially if you are well-versed in his ideas and writings, and have him as your avatar.

Now then, as far as motion and time. Motion is what we call the link of space and time. Your problem arises because the difference in "semantics" is exactly what is causing the problem in the first place. There's not a discrepancy in science here. If I define milk as being the same structure as orange juice and then say milk isn't milk anymore, I don't have a good argument; I haven't really done anything but be stupid and confuse myself. Read the Schroedinger quote again, it seems you have misunderstood it.

FortunaMaximus

11-14-2006, 02:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Now then, as far as motion and time. Motion is what we call the link of space and time. Your problem arises because the difference in "semantics" is exactly what is causing the problem in the first place. There's not a discrepancy in science here. If I define milk as being the same structure as orange juice and then say milk isn't milk anymore, I don't have a good argument; I haven't really done anything but be stupid and confuse myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good news: You wouldn't have been wrong 3/4 of the time. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

aeest400

11-14-2006, 04:13 AM

Just wanted to chime in that John21 strikes me as none too bright and potentially deranged.

John21

11-14-2006, 04:51 AM

I don't know of any particular starting point in you post to begin, so I'll work my way backwards.

[ QUOTE ]
Now then, as far as motion and time. Motion is what we call the link of space and time. Your problem arises because the difference in "semantics" is exactly what is causing the problem in the first place. There's not a discrepancy in science here. If I define milk as being the same structure as orange juice and then say milk isn't milk anymore, I don't have a good argument; I haven't really done anything but be stupid and confuse myself. Read the Schroedinger quote again, it seems you have misunderstood it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now then, as far as motion and time. Motion is what we call the link of space and time.

And I'm claiming that time is the result of the wave motion of space.

Semantics?

Hint: I'm going to end up proposing that space is the infinite factor in the equation, not time. So if you end up prescribing the behaviour of fields as a function of time, I will present a theory to counter it.

I'll attempt to combine Newton's absolute space and Einstein's spatially extended structure of matter with the wave properties of matter described by Schrodinger.

But we have to start somewhere, so... semantics?

John21

11-14-2006, 04:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just wanted to chime in that John21 strikes me as none too bright and potentially deranged.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my mind dying stupid and deranged still beats dying like one of them.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/skylanepublishing/01_16_61_web.jpg

Or to put it bluntly: until we know the true nature of reality... we're all crackpots.

JimNashe

11-14-2006, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we can't test or verify something, can we say it exists?

[/ QUOTE ]

I sure as hell hope so, as almost every person in the civilized world relies every day on things they wouldn't be able to test, verify, or explain properly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarification: I meant "we" as the human race or sentient beings in the present universe subject to the laws of physics in the universe, not we as in you and I.

And I meant "can't test" to be "cannot ever possibly test" or "it would be impossible in any way to test".

So just because the scientific community hadn't done any tests to verify the forces of gravity did not mean that they couldn't ever do that. And thus the forces of gravity still existed before the theory of gravity.

But if I postulate that there exists a new kind of particle that doesn't have any gravity or interact with the universe in any way, that might be true, but since it has no consequences for us, and we can't ever test for it or verify it's existence it really doesn't exist. And I don't mean that we just haven't thought up a way to test for it, if there is no physical way to test something it doesn't exist.

And similarly if you come up with a theory of physics that have no new predictions or consequences, then you've really not come up with anything.

JimNashe

11-14-2006, 10:15 AM

JimNashe

11-14-2006, 10:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Creationism isn't a dogma, it's an approach to answering the question: what is the nature of absolute reality? It's methods are indistinguishable from mainstream science, it simply starts with a different premise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Along the lines of this one on string theory from the site you posted in the Black Hole thread --

[ QUOTE ]
If the Large Hadron Collider does create black holes, not only will it prove that extra dimensions of the universe exist, but the radiation that decaying black holes emit could yield clues that help finally unite all the current ideas about the forces of nature under a "theory of everything."

[/ QUOTE ]

Using scientificly "indistinguishable methods" what can you point to that will predict an outcome and a test for it on the basis of creationism?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

If you accept the current definition of black holes: regions of space where matter and light are falling inward and cannot escape. You are then forced to conclude that the same theory predicts the possibility of white holes, regions of space very similar to black holes except matter and light are streaming outward.

Let there be light! /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

No we're not. White holes are a mathematical entity in the theory of general relativity, when you do calculations about black holes and use a mass of zero. Black holes have been observed (or rather the effects of black holes have), but we've yet to see any white holes.

They might exist, but just because we accept black holes, does not logically follow that white holes exist in the universe also.