ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

On the existence of gods

Dominic and I have decided two things. First, we are going to publish the three-round debate with an introduction by him and a conclusion by me as an ebook and audiobook. Second, AFTER the book is published, we are going to continue the debate. Two or three rounds more should be sufficient. Then we will combine the two debates into a single print edition.

Anyhow, I'm interested in the three judges getting in touch here for two reasons. First, to see if they are interested in reprising their role as judges - and I'm talking about the SECOND Christian judge, not the first one. And second, I'd like to know if the Agnostic judge still has his notes and would like them to be included in the book.

It was very interesting to re-read the debate again, since I had forgotten most of it, after reading Umberto Eco's exchange of letters with Cardinal Martini. And frankly, I thought our debate was not only more interesting, but more intellectually demanding.

Sadly, the impact of my point about the scientific perspective being intrinsically temporally limited by the speed of light being shattered was reduced, though not at all undermined, by the discovery of the CERN researchers that a loose fiber optic cable was to blame for the neutrinos showing up faster than expected.

Labels: ,

69 Comments:

Blogger Jack Ward February 28, 2016 12:53 PM  

A loose fiber cable? Well! Kinda makes one wonder if this was an honest mistake or something designed? With the shenanigans in what goes for science these days...that I should even have to ask.

Blogger Nick S February 28, 2016 12:59 PM  

Yes. I would like to re-read that myself. Excellent points were made all around.

I had copied and pasted the whole thing into a text file and saved it on my hard drive, but during a glitch in an OS installation I got fed up with fooling around and without thinking too much about it wiped the drive as clean as I could and reformatted. Who needs back-ups?

Such is the fate of those who dare tinker beyond their ken.

Blogger Michael Maier February 28, 2016 1:06 PM  

I find it interesting that no one talks about the speed of light not being constant.

Anonymous English-American February 28, 2016 1:08 PM  

Nothing is constant.

Blogger MycroftJones February 28, 2016 1:21 PM  

I think Barry Setterfields work about the changing speed of light is independant of CERN and loose fiber optic cables. http://setterfield.org/

Anonymous Stickwick February 28, 2016 1:25 PM  

Jack Ward: A loose fiber cable? Well! Kinda makes one wonder if this was an honest mistake or something designed? With the shenanigans in what goes for science these days...that I should even have to ask.

It was an honest mistake.

The documented shenanigans in science are almost all in medical research, not in the physical sciences. There is far more money and power at stake in the medical field than in the physical sciences.

As someone who has been working in the physical sciences for two decades, I can tell you that it serves no credible purpose for CERN scientists, or physicists in general, to systematically engage in shenanigans. Why would they announce such a monumental discovery in the first place if their intention was to cover up evidence of superluminal speeds? It would make more sense for them to simply not remark on it at all. Shenanigans aren't consistent with the pattern of behavior of physicists over the last four centuries. Here is a recent example of physicists being forthcoming about a mistake when it not only undermined a result they are desperate to prove, but made them look like idiots.

Michael Maier: I find it interesting that no one talks about the speed of light not being constant.

All evidence very strongly indicates that the speed of light is constant and unbreakable by any material object. That's why no one talks about it.

That being said, the truth is that accepted ideas and theoretical expectations in physics are shattered all the time. Vox, I can provide you with several recent examples for your debate, if you like.

Blogger alexamenos February 28, 2016 1:45 PM  

@vd I'm still in, I'll check for notes and advise via email.

Blogger Aeoli Pera February 28, 2016 1:47 PM  

Sadly, the impact of my point about the scientific perspective being intrinsically temporally limited by the speed of light being shattered was reduced, though not at all undermined, by the discovery of the CERN researchers that a loose fiber optic cable was to blame for the neutrinos showing up faster than expected.

Did anyone really believe that though? Yeesh, it's the Copenhagen thing all over again.

Jack Ward wrote:A loose fiber cable? Well! Kinda makes one wonder if this was an honest mistake or something designed? With the shenanigans in what goes for science these days...that I should even have to ask.

The shenanigans in physics is almost all historical revisionism to whitewash the process into some kind of glitzy utopian march of progress into a secular humanist future. There might be some shenanigans emergent from the publish-or-perish paradigm, but I wouldn't know about that.

The fact is that there's no money in new physics. No business has a time horizon long enough for that.

Blogger VD February 28, 2016 1:53 PM  

I'm still in, I'll check for notes and advise via email

Excellent. That's all we need to proceed.

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 28, 2016 2:00 PM  

Constant from whose perspective? If an atom of light travels into a black hole, what is its speed? If the constant is universal, then how can time be relative?

Now, fortunately we can ignore such variability when all we want to guess is how far arcturus is likely to be from the solar system.

Blogger pyrrhus February 28, 2016 2:10 PM  

Entanglement of particles still violates the theory of relativity, as information is transmitted instantaneously, not at the speed of light....

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros February 28, 2016 2:15 PM  

VFM #6306 wrote:Constant from whose perspective?

Constant from every perspective. That's basic Relativity 101.

VFM #6306 wrote:If the constant is universal, then how can time be relative?

Because distance is also relative to your reference frame.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 2:28 PM  

Michael Maier wrote:I find it interesting that no one talks about the speed of light not being constant.

You can find a discussion in Rupert Sheldrake's The God Delusion aka Science Set Free. The measure of the speed of light has varied over the decades, not as bad as the gravitational 'constant' but still enough to raise eyebrows. This is probably why the 1984 standards committee went to the extreme of redefining the meter. An intense debate on this was in the Speed of Light Talk Wiki page a few years ago, but it has been purged.

Constant speed of light in all frames is a "postulate" cut from whole cloth, a speculation. It is needed to support Einstein's version(s) of relativity, which in turn gave rise to moral relativity and then on to multiculturalism- cf Taxation is Robbery (published ca 1950). Constancy of the speed of light is a linchpin of The Narrative.

Blogger S1AL February 28, 2016 2:38 PM  

Well, that's a novel conspiracy theory.

Blogger Timmy3 February 28, 2016 2:40 PM  

I hope you can finish the debate. There were a few that ended prematurely. Some judges were disqualified. Perhaps you should just debate without the judges. Or have 5 panel judge and anyone can leave at any moment. The readers will decide regardless, but judges should offer written commentary if anyone chooses to read it.

Blogger Jack Ward February 28, 2016 2:40 PM  

@6 Stickwick.
I bow to your greater, by far, knowledge and experience. All too true per the medical fraud in this country. See Karl's archives and almost daily posts on the medical mess, over at MarketTicker.com
Good grief, if we can't at least trust the hard science folk [physicists, chemists, etc.] what hope have we?
Personally, I would love to see humans devise a way to bypass light speed. If for no other reason than all the dreams of youth reading the SF that used to mean so much.
It does seem that 'thought' or mental activity, is not limited by light speed. Maybe it would end up being something like the spacing guild of Dune. At least in technique; spare me the bureaucracy.

Blogger wrf3 February 28, 2016 2:41 PM  

pyrrhus @ 11:

That's not true. There is no superluminal transmission of information in QM.

Blogger Crude February 28, 2016 2:42 PM  

@6,

I don't believe it's in the character of the typical physicist to fake a result or an experiment. I do believe many of them would, and do, shamelessly exaggerate what the results of a given experiment means, especially related to God or philosophical topics.

Blogger Nate February 28, 2016 2:44 PM  

awesome. looking forward to picking this. We should figure out a way to publish the econ debate as well.

Blogger wrf3 February 28, 2016 2:44 PM  

Spartacus @14: Do you hold Maxwell's equations to be a true description of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation?

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 2:47 PM  

Jack Ward wrote:@6

Good grief, if we can't at least trust the hard science folk [physicists, chemists, etc.] what hope have we?


It's easier to list out the 'hard' sciences that are not riddled with fraud. Here: {}
Put 'anything sciencey' + fraud into any search engine.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 2:48 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Spartacus @14: Do you hold Maxwell's equations to be a true description of the behavior of electromagnetic radiation?

If I were to answer that you would know who I am.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 2:51 PM  

Light speed is a *defined* constant now, rather than being determined empirically via permittivity and permeability of free space, or via other means. While Special Relativity still holds up well, in my view defining a measurable constant (speed of light in vacuum) is arrogant and narrow-minded at best. It sends exactly the wrong message to young scientists and science educators, namely that some portions of physical science are now hedged from skepticism.

Blogger Rantor February 28, 2016 2:56 PM  

I love this place, looking forward to the book... How is Sea of Skulls coming along?

Blogger wrf3 February 28, 2016 3:01 PM  

Spartacus xxxx @23 wrote: "If I were to answer the you would know who I am."

You flatter yourself. I would neither know, nor care, who you are. All it takes is a simple "yes" or "no".

Anonymous Icicle February 28, 2016 3:05 PM  

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/11/mailvox-deitic-definitions.html
This is from the archives.

Why do you think Quetzalcoatl is real?

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 3:07 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:Light speed is a *defined* constant now, rather than being determined empirically via permittivity and permeability of free space, or via other means. While Special Relativity still holds up well, in my view defining a measurable constant (speed of light in vacuum) is arrogant and narrow-minded at best. It sends exactly the wrong message to young scientists and science educators, namely that some portions of physical science are now hedged from skepticism.

Special Relativity holds up 50% of the time. There is an enormous literature on why it is '50% wrong' and why there are over 50 different answers to the TwinParadox.net. It boils down to a failure of algebra and the hubris of defining a constant. Numerous patches like Lorentz Boosts and Thomas Precession are piled on to make it seem real. If you had an equation that says F = Ma^2, you can still make that equation work with a bit of 'pertubation' theory.

After some debate in the 1920's, there was a quiet purge in the 1930's, all physicists who did not support SR got the boot or were otherwise muffled. Einstein didn't get the Prize for SR because they knew it was incorrect.

Blogger wrf3 February 28, 2016 3:08 PM  

Man of the Atom @24: ...rather than being determined empirically via permittivity and permeability of free space, or via other means.

c = 1/sqrt(μ0ϵ0), where μ0 = permeability and ϵ0 = permittivity.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 3:08 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Spartacus xxxx @23 wrote: "If I were to answer the you would know who I am."

You flatter yourself. I would neither know, nor care, who you are. All it takes is a simple "yes" or "no".


no.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 3:15 PM  

wrf3 wrote:Man of the Atom @24: ...rather than being determined empirically via permittivity and permeability of free space, or via other means.

c = 1/sqrt(μ0ϵ0), where μ0 = permeability and ϵ0 = permittivity.



Yes, where I would empirically measure ϵ0 and μ0. I don't understand your point.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 3:27 PM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:

Special Relativity holds up 50% of the time. There is an enormous literature on why it is '50% wrong' and why there are over 50 different answers to the TwinParadox.net. It boils down to a failure of algebra and the hubris of defining a constant. Numerous patches like Lorentz Boosts and Thomas Precession are piled on to make it seem real. If you had an equation that says F = Ma^2, you can still make that equation work with a bit of 'pertubation' theory.


Yes, I've worked through some of those perturbation equatiuons, and understand the basis of your argument. The acceleration injection into a system defined to be "a = 0" was never a comfortable exercise for me, my cohorts, or my instructors.

After some debate in the 1920's, there was a quiet purge in the 1930's, all physicists who did not support SR got the boot or were otherwise muffled. Einstein didn't get the Prize for SR because they knew it was incorrect.

I have read some of the debates on these concerns, and also those in GR (Einstein's and others' interpretations of "1/r" in the Schwarzschild formula).

My larger concern is more toward the philosophy of science, per my first comment. I don't want to derail the thread anymore than I already have, so I'll leave it here.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 4:03 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:My larger concern is more toward the philosophy of science, per my first comment. I don't want to derail the thread anymore than I already have, so I'll leave it here.

It's not clear what the post is actually about. There is an ongoing debate which sounds interesting but we don't have many details. We do see the discovery of the CERN researchers that a loose fiber optic cable was to blame for the neutrinos showing up faster than expected. float by, and that's another one of those questionable items. Was it a really a loose connector? The delay was something like 60ns, maybe 40 feet in the cable dielectric. Most electrical connectors aren't 40 feet long, nor do they have other time-delay properties. They can noise up the signal and attenuate it but they can't delay it. I wasn't there but the affair has a bit of the same hmmm as every other speed-of-light experiment.

Blogger Doc Rampage February 28, 2016 4:06 PM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:Constant speed of light in all frames is a "postulate" cut from whole cloth, a speculation. It is needed to support Einstein's version(s) of relativity, which in turn gave rise to moral relativity and then on to multiculturalism- cf Taxation is Robbery (published ca 1950). Constancy of the speed of light is a linchpin of The Narrative.
Moral relativity has been around a lot longer than physical relativity, but the moral relativists certainly seized on it in the most ridiculous ways to provide credence to their ideas.

And actually, the constancy of the speed of light was an experimental result from the Michelson–Morley experiment and it was this theoretical result which prompted the derivation of the Lorentz transformations. Special relativity was essentially an exploration of the consequences of the Lorentz transformations.

I'll allow that the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment were taken much more broadly than the experiment itself (or later versions of it) warranted, but that's how science works. Scientists do a tiny number of experiments under highly idealized circumstances, on a tiny fraction of available things, and then assume that the behavior is characteristic of all things under all circumstances. Then when they (inevitably) encounter exceptions to their generalization, they just add details to the theory to adjust for it.

It has been an amazingly successful method in the physical sciences, but no one has ever given a convincing argument for why the basic process should be useful in areas not subject to this iterative corrective approach. For example, there is now a rich and detailed theory about black holes: how they are created, how they end--but no one has ever had a black hole to study. The theories are completely unhinged from reality.

Blogger Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy February 28, 2016 4:16 PM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:If I were to answer that you would know who I am.

Ralph Sansbury?

Anonymous rienzi February 28, 2016 4:22 PM  

Since there seem to be a lot of people on this thread with a lot more knowledge in this area than I have, I would like an answer to a question that has troubled me for some time.

" Does the center of the earth rotate around the center of the the sun where the sun is now, or where the sun was eight minutes ago? If where the sun is now, How does it know this? Is gravity faster then light?

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 4:23 PM  

Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy wrote:Spartacus xxxxx wrote:If I were to answer that you would know who I am.

Ralph Sansbury?


LOL

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 28, 2016 4:24 PM  

The empirical basis for a constant such as light, when it instead appears to be a near-constant (such as the near-constants assumed in the Newtonian Laws) is definitely fair game. First, is the math a proof or merely a reliable equation within parameters? Last I checked it is of the latter. Secondly, even if a mathematical proof, has the math been tested in physics to the proof level?

Reliable in the first, "no" to the second means that the constant is likely to be a reliable near-constant (or if you prefer, an incomplete constant): useful, but not as fundamentally delimiting. Relativity 101 is precisely what I question here.

If the scope of Newtonian physics is limited, and the scope of GR is limited, why not the scope of a constant within both? After all, has any science ever revealed the ideal form of a thing (matter or energy) in the universe?

The Limits of Light debate could be as bracing as the On the Existence of Gods debate.

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 4:27 PM  

Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy wrote:Spartacus xxxxx wrote:If I were to answer that you would know who I am.

Ralph Sansbury?


That's one of those comments I wish I could take back. Oh well. So I mis-click to respond and get a picture of young heaving bosoms to go with the handle. Next, I look up a Ralph Sansbury. Looks interesting. He apparently passed away a year ago.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 4:29 PM  

rienzi wrote:Since there seem to be a lot of people on this thread with a lot more knowledge in this area than I have, I would like an answer to a question that has troubled me for some time.

" Does the center of the earth rotate around the center of the the sun where the sun is now, or where the sun was eight minutes ago? If where the sun is now, How does it know this? Is gravity faster then light?


How long is it for Pluto (or Neptune) to "see" that speed-of-light-limited graviton from the sun and shares its exchange particle with our star?

Excellent question. How does a black hole "talk" to other graviton exchangers when nothing escapes its event horizon?

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx February 28, 2016 4:48 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:rienzi wrote:Since there seem to be a lot of people on this thread with a lot more knowledge in this area than I have, I would like an answer to a question that has troubled me for some time.

" Does the center of the earth rotate around the center of the the sun where the sun is now, or where the sun was eight minutes ago? If where the sun is now, How does it know this? Is gravity faster then light?


How long is it for Pluto (or Neptune) to "see" that speed-of-light-limited graviton from the sun and shares its exchange particle with our star?

Excellent question. How does a black hole "talk" to other graviton exchangers when nothing escapes its event horizon?


Look up "Speed of Gravity", oh- http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp. It can't be the speed of light or the planets would spiral into the Sun due to a net torque. It has to be either instantaneous or nearly so. Supposedly the Earth orbits around the barcyenter (call it the center of the sun for present purpose) at this instant, not the barycenter of 8 minutes ago. This instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is baked in to Newton's law of gravity (F = GMm/r^2), which does work pretty good. Most of the time. Except when it doesn't. (Pioneer anomaly, flyby anomaly, galactic velocity curve, non-gravitational comet, second derivative of lunar elongation)

Anonymous English-American February 28, 2016 4:52 PM  

That's one of those comments I wish I could take back. Oh well. So I mis-click to respond and get a picture of young heaving bosoms to go with the handle. Next, I look up a Ralph Sansbury.

Ralph Sansbury...heaving bosoms...hilarious. This blog & comments are always good for a few chuckles.



The Limits of Light debate could be as bracing as the On the Existence of Gods debate

Second this but I acknowledge there will probably be no room between Trumpposts and EU rapefugee posts.

Anonymous Stickwick February 28, 2016 4:58 PM  

Jack Ward: Personally, I would love to see humans devise a way to bypass light speed. If for no other reason than all the dreams of youth reading the SF that used to mean so much.

If you mean greater than light speed travel, not all hope is lost. While nothing material can move within space at a speed at or greater than the speed of light, space itself can stretch at speeds greater than light. It's not inconceivable that you could find a way to capitalize on that to make super-c travel possible. In that respect, a lot of super-c travel in SF is not implausible.

Doc Rampage: For example, there is now a rich and detailed theory about black holes: how they are created, how they end--but no one has ever had a black hole to study. The theories are completely unhinged from reality.

No, they're not unhinged from reality, we're just limited in what we can observe. We have ample black holes to study; I, personally, have studied tens of thousands of them, and we have a nice big fat one in our own Galaxy to study. What we don't currently have is one that is within our physical reach.

rienzi: Does the center of the earth rotate around the center of the the sun where the sun is now, or where the sun was eight minutes ago? If where the sun is now, How does it know this? Is gravity faster then light?

The Earth, the Sun, and everything in the solar system orbits the center of mass of the solar system -- the barycenter -- which is somewhere inside the Sun but not the exact center. This is why the Sun wobbles a bit in its revolution, and why the barycenter measurably changes with time. To answer your question, changes in gravity are not instantaneous, but move at the speed of light, so in that sense the Earth is at every moment orbiting where the barycenter was eight minutes ago.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 4:58 PM  

Spartacus xxxxx wrote:Man of the Atom wrote:rienzi wrote:Since there seem to be a lot of people on this thread with a lot more knowledge in this area than I have, I would like an answer to a question that has troubled me for some time.

" Does the center of the earth rotate around the center of the the sun where the sun is now, or where the sun was eight minutes ago? If where the sun is now, How does it know this? Is gravity faster then light?


How long is it for Pluto (or Neptune) to "see" that speed-of-light-limited graviton from the sun and shares its exchange particle with our star?

Excellent question. How does a black hole "talk" to other graviton exchangers when nothing escapes its event horizon?


Look up "Speed of Gravity", oh- http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp. It can't be the speed of light or the planets would spiral into the Sun due to a net torque. It has to be either instantaneous or nearly so. Supposedly the Earth orbits around the barcyenter (call it the center of the sun for present purpose) at this instant, not the barycenter of 8 minutes ago. This instantaneous-action-at-a-distance is baked in to Newton's law of gravity (F = GMm/r^2), which does work pretty good. Most of the time. Except when it doesn't. (Pioneer anomaly, flyby anomaly, galactic velocity curve, non-gravitational comet, second derivative of lunar elongation)


Yes. Net torques or net non-zero stress tensor components are no friends to 1/r^2 orbits

Now, since the name of Sansbury was invoked, do we get to discuss IEEE Plasma Cosmology (Peratt) or the Electric Universe? ;-)

Blogger Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy February 28, 2016 6:07 PM  

Tom van Flandern FTW RIP

Blogger Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy February 28, 2016 6:08 PM  

Man of the Atom wrote:Now, since the name of Sansbury was invoked, do we get to discuss IEEE Plasma Cosmology (Peratt) or the Electric Universe? ;-)

I have been waiting for nothing else.

Blogger Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy February 28, 2016 6:11 PM  

I would also like to discuss the possibility that the Tycho Brahe helio-geocentric system is correct, and that the astronomers are lying about finding stellar distances via parallax.

Anonymous Man of the Atom February 28, 2016 6:15 PM  

Young Heaving Bosoms of Confederacy wrote:I would also like to discuss the possibility that the Tycho Brahe helio-geocentric system is correct, and that the astronomers are lying about finding stellar distances via parallax.

They're all just jealous of his nose.

Blogger Giuseppe The Kurgan February 28, 2016 6:17 PM  

VD,
the speed of light was shattered in Cologne in the 90s by the transmission of one of Mozart's symphonies at 4.7 times lightspeed with quantum tunnelling. I can get you the reference as it's in my book, the Face on Mars.

Blogger David Gudeman February 28, 2016 8:13 PM  

Stickwick wrote:We have ample black holes to study; I, personally, have studied tens of thousands of them, and we have a nice big fat one in our own Galaxy to study. What we don't currently have is one that is within our physical reach.

You have theory piled upon theory to such depth that it's a virtual house of cards, yet you speak as if you are dealing with observable object. In fact, you haven't studied any black holes. You have observed radiation that you theorize was produced indirectly by interactions with a black hole. It's an indirect observation of a theoretical effect of a theoretical entity with a theoretical object.

It's only natural that you would talk to each other as if these theories were real observations, because that's the easy way to speak and you all know what you really mean. But when you speak to non-physicists/astronomers this way of speaking is deceptive because most people do not realize how much everything you say depends on the truth of some very abstract theories.

Blogger MycroftJones February 28, 2016 11:37 PM  

The Michelson Morley experiment didn't prove special relativity. It proved the earth is not moving (Biblical geocentrism). Relativity came afterward to "explain" it in a way that didn't kibosh Copernicus and his crowd of witches.

As for the speed of light being a constant, that is a joke. Barry Setterfield has been documenting this for decades. In the 300 years that the speed of light has been measured, it has been observably decreasing. Barry found that the decrease in the speed of light follows a curve that has light being almost infinite in speed right when the Bible says the earth was created (Septuagint, not Masoretic, a 1500 year difference)

http://setterfield.org/

Blogger Ahazuerus February 29, 2016 12:31 AM  

No, they're not unhinged from reality, we're just limited in what we can observe. We have ample black holes to study; I, personally, have studied tens of thousands of them, and we have a nice big fat one in our own Galaxy to study. What we don't currently have is one that is within our physical reach.

"Pride - it's my favorite sin!"

OpenID anonymos-coward February 29, 2016 12:33 AM  

It's amazing how far over backwards you all will bend to support your childhood religious fantasy of traveling to other planets and seeing aliens.

In reality, it's physically impossible to visit another solar system. It's impossible to speak to or see an alien.

In fact, 'aliens' do not exist. God created the planet Earth and mankind, the rest of the Universe is just meaningless procedurally-generated nothingness.

There is only this little Earth and this humanity, and you will get no other chance. Make good use of it instead of inventing false realities.

('Space travel' is a dangerous delusion, a denial of Christ and his Kingdom. Ultimately, all this claptrap has nothing to do with science and stems from the Russian Cosmists, a very dangerous bunch of heretics.)

Blogger Ahazuerus February 29, 2016 12:38 AM  

There are other explanations which fit the experimental observations. In the way of things- i.e. people - accepting these would overthrow many, if not all, of the conclusions and careers built on exploring their implications. Therefore they are not accepted. Not until the Ptolemaic epicycles become so ludicrous they are obviously wrong and some distant generation of scientists has the poor taste to publicly say so. Whereupon the texts are re-written and the cycle repeats.

Blogger MycroftJones February 29, 2016 1:46 AM  

When you understand Fourier transforms, it turns out Ptolemy's epicycles and equants are actually mathematically simpler than what Copernicus and co. replaced it with. And it took decades before Copernican math approached the accuracy of Ptolemy.

Heliocentrism was pushed with the agenda of getting rid of all Abrahamic faiths. It laid the groundwork for Darwinian evolution. Like Marx, Darwin didn't originate his theory; he popularized it.

Blogger Dire Badger February 29, 2016 1:53 AM  

As a non-scientist, I have always wondered...
How do they measure the speed of light?
Also, if the earth, solar system, and galaxy are moving relative to the universe as a whole, wouldn't light appear to have different speeds depending on which way you were sending it?
For example, if you sent in the direction the galaxy was moving, wouldn't it appear to be moving more slowly than if you beamed it in the direction the galaxy was moving from?

Does anyone know of any less mathematical papers where this question might be discussed? Or are we still in a Galilean world where earth is the center of the universe, speaking relatively?

Blogger MycroftJones February 29, 2016 1:59 AM  

Quote http://reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/geo/pages/01-thinking-reasoning-geocentrically.htm

Copernicus’ model was neither more accurate, nor less complicated than Ptolemy’s. Copernicus had to use considerably more epicycles than Ptolemy. What those who would pull the wool over our eyes do is to compare an early version of Ptolemy’s method of calculation not against that of Copernicus, but against that of Kepler and Newton after improvement by many years of research and refinement. Secondly Ptolemy and his epicycles are not the primitive and outdated objects of fun the humanists would have us believe. The most convenient means of calculating planetary positions today is still Ptolemy’s, though his method has been modernised into "Fourier analysis", and his "epicycles" are now "terms in an infinite series." The most improved versions of Kepler’s method are still not superior in accuracy and convenience.

Now most Christians, Ron Tagliapietra included, are side-tracked by the red herring of the solar system (where the earth clearly cannot be stationary at the centre), fail to look any further, assume that the geocentric position is utterly untenable, and search for ways to "excuse" the Bible for its "mistaken" stand and interpret it to say something different. To the Bible-believers of Copernicus’s day there was simply no doubt about the Bible’s geocentricity. Copernicus said "surely it is more reasonable to assume that the earth rotates once each day than that the entire universe rotates around it." Calvin countered with "The heavens revolve daily; immense as is their fabric, and inconceivable the rapidity of their revolutions" [commentary to Psalm 93:1] in deliberate scripture-based contradiction. Luther, speaking of Copernicus’s idea said "Even in these things which are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures." Galileo was so confident that the Bible puts the earth stationary at the centre of the universe that to disregard it he had to say "In matters concerning the natural sciences Holy Writ must occupy the last place."

Why were they so certain of the Bible’s stand?

Well for one thing Genesis 1 tells us that God created the unformed watery waste of the earth on the first day. On day two He separated the waters above from the waters below by an expanse called the "firmament," and on the fourth day He set the sun moon and stars in this firmament. Where is the possibility for the day-one-created earth to be circling around the day-four-created sun?

And why should the Bible say "He …. hangeth the earth upon nothing." [Job 26:7] if in fact the earth is not hanging on nothing, but whirling around at a hundred thousand kilometres per hour on the end of a gravitational cord of billions of tons of attraction from the sun?

And again Psalm 19 says of the sun, he "rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it:" Giving the sun a circuit round which to run, not the earth.

Blogger Scott February 29, 2016 2:06 AM  

Quantum entanglement is one of my favorite tools to illustrate the limits of the scientific perspective.

Blogger Ahazuerus February 29, 2016 2:40 AM  

Biblical arguments for geocentrism are simultaneously strong and weak. God wrote only a few words with his own finger and the vast majority of professing Christians claim to believe a man (Pope or Paul it hardly matters which) can countermand his fourth "lifestyle suggestion", while at the same time putting forward these arguments that geocentrism is God's unbreakable decree.

But the bible was written by men, and from our frame of reference the sun and moon and stars observably revolve around us.

Yet CHRISTianity is God-centric and not man-centric (i.e. Humanist). Ironically my iPhone autocorrects geocentrism to egocentrism.

Pride will be the death of all who perish.

Blogger David Gudeman February 29, 2016 3:35 AM  

OK, Mycroftjones, you're just being silly. First of all, Ptolemy's system was never intended to be nor understood as a model of real planetary motion. It contradicted accepted physics from the very beginning, because the planets were believed to move in perfect circles. Ptolemy's system was strictly a geometric tool to predict planetary motion, and it was discarded not because anyone proved it was "wrong"--no one ever thought it was in any sense "right", but because eventually the heleocentric system proved a better way to predict planetary motion.

None of this was dependent on whether the earth moved or not.
The motion of the earth was proven, not by astronomy, but by pendulums (or at any rate, it was proven that the earth not an inertial frame of reference).

Also, today, people say that the Sun rises in the east and no one thinks they are wrong. It is common and accurate to describe motion relative to the observer. If you were on a train and measuring the speed of a toy car, you would measure it relative to the train and not relative to the ground. No one (except a real prick) would say you were wrong. Those biblical passages that talk about the motion of heavenly bodies are describing the motion from the point of view of the human observer. Those descriptions can be entirely true even if it is actually the observer who is moving (that is, it is the observer who is not in an inertial frame of reference).

Anonymous Mr. Rational February 29, 2016 7:09 AM  

@3 Because nobody with a clue takes the wild variations in the first, halting measurements as anything but experimental error.  If you insist that c was actually varying so wildly in the past 200 years, and suddenly stopped as soon as our methods got accurate enough to confirm it, your concept of God switches from honest broker to malign conspirator and deceiver:  Allah, essentially.

There's too much else that changes along with c for any great variation to be possible without blatant consequences; e=mc² is just one of them.

@11 The states collapse randomly; you cannot use them to transmit information.  Knowing what a distant observer observed before they can get that information to you does not let you send a message FTL.

@23 It's so defined because it's invariant and can be used to define other physical quantities better than e.g. iridium bars.  One day we may get to the point of defining the gram as a specified number of atoms of C-12.

@39 The glib answer is "Hawking radiation".

MycroftJones wrote:The Michelson Morley experiment didn't prove special relativity. It proved the earth is not moving (Biblical geocentrism).
The same experiments elsewhere, e.g. on board satellites, show that they are "not moving" either relative to the "ether".

As for the speed of light being a constant, that is a joke.... In the 300 years that the speed of light has been measured, it has been observably decreasing.
So you're claiming that μ0*ε0 has been increasing, and c² has been decreasing.  Do work out some of the observable consequences of this, and tell us which ones have in fact been observed.  (Hint:  Setterfield is a crank.)

@52 Shades of the argument that nobody could live at the antipodes.

@53 Scientific careers are made by overturning previous results.

Blogger Skylark Thibedeau February 29, 2016 8:57 AM  

Shouldn't we be able to get to a point to where we would find the place in this universe where there is no light coming back because the galaxies created by the big bang have reached their limit and have not yet expanded into that void?

Blogger Ahazuerus February 29, 2016 11:34 AM  

Mr Rational

Ja ja - it's a feature not a bug.

Actually , that's utterly irrelevant. The point is that everything you are certain of today WILL be overturned.

Again and again.

And again.

What I am certain of is that the current understanding as embodied by accepted scientific models is wrong,and what overturns it will be wrong.

Whereas God has a long record of being right.

Now as a rational man, who would you advise me to trust?

Blogger Ahazuerus February 29, 2016 11:39 AM  

Mr Rational

You're wrong about careers, too.

Maybe one career in a generation is made by overturning the standard model in some way.

A few hundred are destroyed by making the attempt.

Millions are made by following the crowd.

Which of these would a rational man ssy is representative of the field?

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd February 29, 2016 12:01 PM  

``@53 Scientific careers are made by overturning previous results.''

Mr. Rational, do you have a career in science? In economics at least, ``Your result overturns the established wisdom'' equals ``Your result cannot be published,'' and quite possibly equals ``You are a potential crackpot, and a bad risk for tenure.'' For a young scientist, it's safer to sweep inconvenient observations under the rug, unless you can find a safe way to bring them up - one which won't upset the applecarts of the tenure committee and the journal editors.

Anonymous Mr. Rational February 29, 2016 1:40 PM  

@61 If memory serves, the furthest visible galaxies, whose light has been en route for on the order of 13 billion years, are now on the order of 78 billion light-years away due to the expansion of space.  Someone with more applicable math chops than I might be able to calculate if there's an asymptotic limit beyond which CBR will never be able to reach us; it will be red-shifted to absolute zero first.

Unless humanity has transcended this physical universe by then, any remaining life will be huddled around small red dwarf stars with their trillion-year lifespans.

@62 What I am certain of is that the current understanding as embodied by accepted scientific models is wrong
Did combustion stop being combustion when the understanding got overturned?  Did quantum mechanics cause stone and metal to stop being stone and metal?  Did general relativity make Newtonian mechanics useless?  Of course not.  What we had were descriptions that were less wrong... many of them so trivially different in every-day use that the old methods kept being used for all but the most exceptional purposes.

Whereas God has a long record of being right.
So, these "windows of heaven" from which the Great Flood issued... got any satellite pictures of those?  And where's the Great Drain Plug?

Now as a rational man, who would you advise me to trust?
Trust the guys who take human fallibility as a given and work around it, rather than those who take unsupported claims as unquestionable prophecy.  It only takes one confirmed contrary result to break a scientific theory.  If that worked in religion, most sects of most faiths would be long gone.

@64 ``Your result overturns the established wisdom'' equals ``Your result cannot be published,'' and quite possibly equals ``You are a potential crackpot, and a bad risk for tenure.'
Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson helped overturn the previous model of the cosmos by discovering the CBR in 1964.  Far from not being published, they shared the Nobel prize in physics in 1978.  Remember, "big-bang theory" started as a pejorative.

For a young scientist, it's safer to sweep inconvenient observations under the rug, unless you can find a safe way to bring them up - one which won't upset the applecarts of the tenure committee and the journal editors.
I think you underestimate just how much mileage that universities and journals get from bringing up Nobel prize winners and publishing seminal papers.  It's a prestige game, and failing to publish means losing to someone else.

Of course, publishing something that's wrong is a black eye.  There are always a lot more ways to be wrong than right.  This is why I put no trust in religion; mutually contradictory claims go on for ages with no way to put them to conclusive test.

Blogger MycroftJones March 01, 2016 12:37 AM  

Mr. Rational wrote:@3 Because nobody with a clue takes the wild variations in the first, halting measurements as anything but experimental error.  If you insist that c was actually varying so wildly in the past 200 years, and suddenly stopped as soon as our methods got accurate enough to confirm it, your concept of God switches from honest broker to malign conspirator and deceiver:  Allah, essentially.


== You just outed yourself as a fraud. Barry Setterfield took experimental error into account with full scientific rigor, and the results are within usable bounds.. This is all documented in his research papers. http://setterfield.org/

== Further, this assumption that the change in speed of c has stopped changing... I said no such thing. Nor has Barry.

== So what if God changes the speed of light. That doesn't make Him a deceiver. That statement makes you an emotional manipulator and liar.


There's too much else that changes along with c for any great variation to be possible without blatant consequences; e=mc² is just one of them.


== And some blatant consequences have indeed been found. Fossils of giant flying creatures that are no longer physically possible today, etc.


MycroftJones wrote:The Michelson Morley experiment didn't prove special relativity. It proved the earth is not moving (Biblical geocentrism).

The same experiments elsewhere, e.g. on board satellites, show that they are "not moving" either relative to the "ether".


== And these experiments were on geostationary satellites, no? The "not moving" result is exactly what is expected.



As for the speed of light being a constant, that is a joke.... In the 300 years that the speed of light has been measured, it has been observably decreasing.


So you're claiming that μ0*ε0 has been increasing, and c² has been decreasing.  Do work out some of the observable consequences of this, and tell us which ones have in fact been observed.  (Hint:  Setterfield is a crank.)


== Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued. Setterfield is not a crank. Go study his work.

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 01, 2016 10:34 AM  

MycroftJones wrote:You just outed yourself as a fraud. Barry Setterfield took experimental error into account with full scientific rigor


Yeah, right.  His page is titled "Genesis Science Research", meaning he's got his conclusion and is looking for his data.  And as much as he has from which to pick and choose, he is unable to produce anything other than nonsense, which he proves he knows it is nonsense because of the evasions he uses to cover his errors.  (More on Setterfield here.)

Setterfield's whole purpose is to "prove" that the universe is only a few thousand years old and manufacture some way for light to have travelled billions of LY in that minuscule time.  But if c was 1e6 today's value, e=mc² for nuclear reactions was one TRILLION times as much.  To give just one consequence off the top of my head, brown-dwarf bodies barely able to fuse deuterium for a while would have been heated to incandescence by what little helium they could make, and they wouldn't have had time to cool down yet.  They'd be shining brilliantly... yet the real ones we see are visible only in the deep IR.  You'd have similar problems with normal stars; big ones would be unable to form because they'd light up and drive off their accretion discs much earlier, or if they were formed by fiat they'd explode.  Getting such basic predictions wrong is the essence of crankdom.
So what if God changes the speed of light. That doesn't make Him a deceiver.
YEC allows no other conclusion.  He went to immense effort to make a young universe look ancient and expanding from an origin event that never happened, and made an essential variable look like a totally invariant constant in all modern measurements.  He created in a few months a geological column with so many fossilized organisms in it they would have had to have been crowded together thousands of feet deep in the original water, and sorted them neatly out by type.  That's not an honest broker, that's a fraud.

Go back to your crankdom.  It obviously helps to address some deep insecurity you have.  Just don't throw it at me again, because I'll throw it right back.

Blogger Ahazuerus March 02, 2016 12:36 AM  

Mr Rational

You're also a hypocrite. Everyone eventually settles into one of two positions: either there is a God or their isn't.

Since neither can be proven by direct observation, these are necessarily axioms. It is ... well, axiomatic, that you cannot prove your axioms.

You might know something about confirmation bias, in the abstract, but you patently lack any awareness that it applies to everyone.

Including you.

Your pride in your own opinion is unwarranted and your resort to ad hominem reveals your paucity of argument.

Earth is the only planet we know of with liquid water in any quantity and it is covered by an average of one and a half miles! of water, and your question is: where did all the water go?

Motherfucker, please!

Anonymous Mr. Rational March 02, 2016 8:48 PM  

Ahazuerus wrote:Mr Rational

You're also a hypocrite.

You don't know what the word means.  I'm not the one pushing a grossly faulty model of physics, cosmology and everything else.  I'm not pushing anything, so I can't be un-critical of my own position.
Everyone eventually settles into one of two positions: either there is a God or their isn't.
Wrong.  What is Christian theology but arguments over the specifics of its God's nature, desires and commandments... in effect, "this God exists and that one does not"?

If there's a god that fired up the universe and sat back to watch, that's entirely consistent with what I understand.  That's also consistent with the universe deriving from nothing that a human would call a god.  Occam's razor favors the latter position; we know that impersonal physical laws exist.
Since neither can be proven by direct observation, these are necessarily axioms.
Wrong, see above.
you patently lack any awareness that it applies to everyone.

Including you.

Ah, the charge of hypocrisy was projection!  No real surprise.
Earth is the only planet we know of with liquid water in any quantity
Nonsense.  Ganymede, Europa and Enceladus are known or believed to have oceans beneath their ice surfaces.
it is covered by an average of one and a half miles! of water, and
your question is: where did all the water go?
[obscenity], please!
So where's the other 5 miles of water required to cover the peak of Everest?  Further, how did it get out and then go away in months or weeks?  Idiot, please!

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts