Jump to content
Science Forums

coldcreation

Members
  • Content Count

    1,588
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by coldcreation

  1. Hey JMJ, :)

     

    Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

    ~Richard Dawkins

     

     

    We humans are an extremely important manifestation of the replication bomb, because it is through us - through our brains, our symbolic culture and our technology - that the explosion may proceed to the next stage and reverberate through deep space.

    ~Richard Dawkins

     

     

     

    CC

  2. What I see is that the paper I quoted in the O.P has nothing to do with the authors efforts to scientifically model the attributes in the bible. This is just a red herring. The paper I referenced deals with relativity, not God, not the bible, RELATIVITY. You obviously disagree with the authors religious views, yet thats not what my post is about.

     

    The results in this book, according to the author himself "do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity". The only thing he claims has been altered is "the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory." What the author claims is being established is that "the language of Riemannian geometry is not the language of reality." (He prefers Euclidean geometry, absolute space and absolute time). He concludes that all of the consequences of the Einsteinian theory that apply to an actual physical universe should be interpreted in terms of infinitesimal light clocks." (Source) But these produce only local effects, based on observations by a "privileged observer". His argument is that gravitational redshift and time dilation ("alterations in certain behavior of the natural process called the propagation of electromagnetic radiation") can best be comprehended by introducing his "nonstandard physical world (NSP-world) model". His hope is that a non-standard analysis "resolves" or otherwise changes something within the framework of relativity. But it does not. Non-standard analysis is simply an alternative means of expressing exactly the same ideas as does standard analysis. The fact that he gets a different result from Einstein is proof enough that he made a mistake (or several mistakes) somewhere in his work.

     

    His work bares all the hallmarks of a crank or crackpot (religious or not): he holds an unshakable belief that most of his contemporaries consider to be false; his belief is so wildly at variance with those commonly held as to be ludicrous. He characteristically dismisses all evidence or arguments which contradict his own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate a futile task. He is impervious to facts, evidence, and rational inference.

     

    Although his beliefs (regarding Einstein's relativity, i.e., independent of his promotion of religious views) seem ridiculous to experts in the field, he appears to have been successful in convincing non-experts of his views (such as those at the Templeton Foundation).

     

     

     

    CC

  3. Look, if his theory is wrong then it will be wrong on its own merits, not on whether he is a creationist or what views the author holds on science and theology. Its like saying that newtons laws of motions are wrong just because he was a creationist. They might be wrong(or at best useful approximations for non relativistic velocities) but they will be wrong on their own, not because of the particular philosophy held by their discoverer.

     

    Newton description of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion was a scientific view of the physical universe. He showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws; removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution. His objective was to describe the natural world.

     

    The author of the book you mention in the OP has a quite different agenda: to justify "scientifically" the "Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to "increase our understanding of God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." I.e., nonsense.

     

    Do you see the difference?

     

    CC

  4. So is that it? Because he is a creationist that means he is wrong about everything?

    I dont care if he is a creationist or a democrat or whatever, I wanna know if there is anything behind his nonstandard analysis approach to relativity. Thats why I posted.

    I didnt post this to find out the authors religious views. Thats a non sequitur. Please stay on topic.

     

    In the OP you posted a description of a book by the self-proclaimed creationist (a 1996 Templeton Prize Nominee) Robert A. Herrmann. His General Intelligent Design Theory (not to be confused with Einstein's General relativity theory) is an attempt to "transform God's thoughts into physical reality". His interpretation "shows that it is rational to assume that all physical-system behavior as investigated by science-communities is designed or controlled by intelligent agency." This, so the author claims, "is the first general solution to the problem of intelligent design." (Source: the author's professional biography)

     

    His goal is that theological concepts be investigated by means of the scientific method. Although Dr. Herrmann's techniques can be applied to all major theological doctrine, he chose to apply them to the Bible. Herrmann claims to have constructed a "mathematical structure that predicts and, hence, models scientifically all of the Godhead attributes described within the Bible". His objective is to increase our understanding of "God's created visible and invisible kingdoms." (Source)

     

     

    This is what lurks behind his nonstandard approach to relativity.

    The authors religious views (inseparable from his scientific views) are thus on topic, not off-topic as you claim.

     

     

    Indeed, the authors musings are "relative only to effects within an empty universe." But this universe is obviously not empty. Furthermore, he writes: "The effects can only be properly measured over local regions where the gravitational potential is considered to be constant and can, thus, be “factored,” so to speak, from the measurements. Measurements that might be taken by what could be considered as “large light-clocks” are not analyzed and could give different results. Predictions associated with ST for all of the alterations are based entirely upon very local measurements and uniform relative velocity. These predictions become less accurate when these conditions are altered." (Source)

     

    And the author writes: "...the results in this book do not overthrow the Einsteinian General Theory of Relativity. What has been altered is the very basic interpretation and foundations of the Einsteinian theory."

     

    Indeed, his secular and theological interpretations are nonstandard.

     

    In his article, God, as He is Biblically described, is a scientifically rational concept, the author gives the reasons why it is important that the rationality of this concept be established. "This significant result should be known by all of humankind. (This is a specific example of modern mathematical philosophy.) This paper defines the notion of the mathematical infinite and shows that, "although the strength of God's comparative attributes and intelligence can be modeled mathematically, the mathematics apparently cannot model an ultimate (i.e. absolute) bound for such strengths. The mathematics does imply that accepting such an ultimate bound is a rational hypothesis."

     

    During Creation Day-Four, the author writes, "there is a problem with scientifically relating starlight to the Biblical time-frame." In this article are two papers where the author claims to solve this starlight and time problem.

     

     

     

    Nonsence.

     

     

    CC

  5. [...]

    Just out of curiosity though what five forces are you referring to? I thought that physics considered there to be four, so I have to wonder was this just a mistype or are you counting them differently then most physicists?

    [...]

     

     

    In in addition to the four known fundamental forces, a fifth force has been postulated. Theories of gravity such as Brans-Dicke theory have a fifth force—possibly with infinite range, which would manifest itself in an effect called the Nordtvedt effect. Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments and long baseline interferometry have been used to search for the effect, i.e., the existence of the fifth force is testable.(Ephraim Fischbach, Daniel Sudarsky, Aaron Szafer, Carrick Talmadge, and S. H. Aronson, "Reanalysis of the Eötvös experiment", Physical Review Letters 56 3, 1986)

     

    Another postulation of a fifth force arises in Kaluza-Klein theory, where the universe has extra dimensions, or in supergravity or string theory, called the Yukawa force. This is testable by experiments which search for a deviation from the inverse square law of gravity.

     

     

    Quintessence is a hypothetical form of dark energy postulated as an explanation of observations of an accelerating universe. It has been proposed by some physicists to be a fifth fundamental force of nature.

     

     

    See too Beyond the Standard Model.

     

    CC

  6. [...] This new approach indirectly shows the existence of an additional electromagnetic interaction with a substratum composed of entities from the nonstandard physical world; a "world" that is distinct from what one defines as our natural world. This is a portion of a substratum, a subquantum region, "below" the vacuum of particle physics that is required for most modern quantum physical theories. [...]

     

    I could be mistaken, but it seems as if the author mentioned above is a perfect candidate for the Templeton Prize.

     

    He bridges the gap between sense and nonsense.

     

     

    EDIT-> According to this source, the author mentioned above is a creationist.

     

    And according to this source, the author invented what he calls, General intelligent design (i.e., nonsense).

     

    Confirmed. His own website states: "the described Biblical attributes and behavior of God are scientifically rational in content. Further, the modeled creationary processes can be intuitively described as transforming God's thoughts into physical reality."

     

     

     

    Nonsense!

     

     

     

     

    CC

  7. So the latest on the experiment that had previously discovered neutrinos going FTL turns out was nothing more

    than possibly faulty wiring (lose connection) and an issue with the clock circuitry.

     

    Hey Maddog. Do you have a link that discusses the "faulty wiring (lose connection) and an issue with the clock circuitry"?

     

    Thanks

     

    CC

  8. [ad hom snipped]

     

    Devolution is a not a creationist idea it was originally presented as an evolutionary mechanism in around 1880-1910. Ray Lankester an evolutionary biologist was the first biologist to come up with the theory of devolution, he was not a creationist. [snip]

     

    From Moontanman's wiki link:

     

    The concept of devolution or degenerative evolution was used by scientists in the 19th century, at this time it was believed by most biologists that evolution had some kind of direction.

     

    In 1857 the physician Bénédict Morel influenced by Lamarckism claimed that environmental factors such as taking drugs or alcohol would produce degeneration in the offspring of those individuals, and would revert those offspring to a primitive state.[6] Morel a devout Catholic had believed that mankind had started in perfection, contrasting modern humanity to the past, Morel claimed there had been "Morbid deviation from an original type".[7] The theory of devolution, was later advocated by some biologists. [...]

     

    One of the first biologists to suggest devolution was Ray Lankester...

     

    Bold added.

     

    Clearly what you write is incomplete. Lankester was perhaps the first "biologist" to come up with the theory of devolution. But devolution was originally a creationist idea, first presented as an evolutionary mechanism in 1857 by a devout Catholic, not circa 1880-1910 (as you write).

     

    Whether the physician Bénédict More should be considered a biologist is irrelevant, so too is the possibility that Lankester may have been the first biologist to adopt the idea of devolution. Key, is that Morel (the devout Catholic) produced the hypothesis of devolution prior to Lankaster (in excess of 20 years prior). Lankester could have been aware of Morel's work, though Morel is not mentioned in Lankester's book: Degeneration: a chapter in Darwinism, 1880 (Lamarck is, however). In 1857 Morel published Traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de l'espèce humaine et des causes qui produisent ces variétés maladives, in which he explains the nature, causes, and indications of human degeneration. This book may not have been translate into English at the time, so it's excusable if Lankester was not aware that Morel published first. He may well have been oblivious to what was transpiring across the English Chanel.

     

    Interestingly enough, the idea of degeneration was not new, even at the time of Morel's publication (though he gave the expression a biological twist).

     

    One of the earliest scientists to advocate degeneration was Johann Friedrich Blumenbach [1752 – 1840] and other monogenists such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon [1707 - 1788], they were believers in the "Degeneration theory" of racial origins the theory claims that races can degenerate into "primitive" forms. Blumenbach claimed that Adam and Eve were white and that other races came about by degeneration from environmental factors such as the sun and poor dieting. Buffon believed that the degeneration could be reversed if proper environmental control was taken and that all contemporary forms of man could revert to the original Caucasian race.

     

    Bold added.

     

     

    CC

  9. [snip]

    So far all examples of rotating objects has an environment to rotate in but its an induction step involved from getting from there to the opinion that all objects has an environment.(or that all environments have their content)

     

    What makes us believe universes are the exception to the norm? Tradition? Our equations?

     

    Having something to rotate in is not a necessary condition of rotation.

    Euler's rotation theorem works for rigid bodies rotating in space, as it does for coordinate systems (what you call "environment").

     

    In physics, according to the theory of special relativity, the Lorentz transformation describes how two observers' varying measurements of space and time can be converted into each other's frames of reference.

     

    In a homogeneous space, the Lorentz transformation is a linear transformation. It may include a rotation of space. Since relativity postulates that the speed of light is the same for all observers, the Lorentz transformation must preserve the spacetime interval between any two events in Minkowski space. The Lorentz transformation describes transformations in which the spacetime event at the origin is fixed. These can be considered as a hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space. The more general set of transformations that also includes translations is called the Poincaré group.

     

    Special relativity can be considered to operate in a four dimensional space (spacetime), three spatial dimensions and one temporal. This space is linear and the four dimensional rotations (called Lorentz transformations) have practical physical interpretations. If a rotation is in the three space dimensions, i.e. about a plane that is in space, then this rotation is the same as a spatial rotation in three dimensions. But a simple rotation about a plane spanned by a space dimension and a time dimension is a "boost", a transformation between two different reference frames that together with other properties of spacetime determines the relativistic relationship between the frames. The set of these rotations forms the Lorentz group. The restricted Lorentz group is generated by ordinary spatial rotations and Lorentz boosts (which can be thought of as hyperbolic rotations in a plane that includes a time-like direction.

     

     

    A visualisation of the Lorentz transformation.

    Only one space coordinate is considered.

    The thin solid lines crossing at right angles depict the time and distance coordinates of an observer at rest with respect to that frame;

    the skewed solid straight lines depict the coordinate grid of an observer moving with respect to that same frame. (Source).

     

     

     

     

    All rotations are described relative to a particular frame of reference. In two-dimensional space there is only one plane of rotation, the plane of the space itself. In a Cartesian coordinate system it is the Cartesian plane, in complex numbers it is the complex plane. Any rotation therefore is of the whole plane, i.e. of the space, keeping only the origin fixed. (See Euler's formula). In three-dimensional space there are an infinite number of planes of rotation, only one of which is involved in any given rotation.

     

     

    EDIT> You may also be interested in reading this article about rotating reference frames, which discusses phenomena such as:

     

    1 Fictitious forces

    2 Relating rotating frames to stationary frames

    2.1 Relation between positions in the two frames

    2.2 Time derivatives in the two frames

    2.3 Relation between velocities in the two frames

    2.4 Relation between accelerations in the two frames

    2.5 Newton's second law in the two frames

    3 Centrifugal force

    4 Coriolis effect

    5 Euler force

    6 References and notes

    7 See also

    8 External links

     

     

    CC

  10. It seemed according to conventional theories the moais statues were dated depending on tracing back the timeline of the arrival of inhabitants there and carbon dating were instead based on the activities of settlers there.

     

    However, much older legend actually hinted that the moais may have existed before the earliest settlers arrived, as mentioned in this statement wherein the king already saw in his dream Mata ki te Rangi (Eyes that look to the Sky), which may mean the statues already existed long before his subjects arrived to settle it.

     

     

    Nonsense.

     

    The statues could not have existed long before his subjects arrived to settle the island.

     

    Estimated dates of initial settlement of Easter Island ranges between 300 to 1200 CE, coinciding with the arrival of the first settlers in Hawaii. The statues were carved from 1100–1680 CE, according to rectified radio-carbon dates.

     

    (Source, Hunt, T. L.; Lipo, CP (2006). "Late Colonization of Easter Island". Science 311 (5767): 1603–6. doi:10.1126/science.1121879. PMID 16527931. And Hunt, Terry; Lipo, Carl (2011). The Statues that Walked: Unraveling the Mystery of Easter Island. Free Press. ISBN 1-43915031-1.)

     

     

    There should be further scrutiny as to the basis of these claims, as carbon dating its timeline were instead based on settlers' activities. Neither were there extensive research as to how the natives could have achieved such level of technological sophistication as placing heavy tons of hats on the statues, not to mention the sheer process to come up with hundred of such huge sculptures with some that turned out not only having faces, but sculpted with torsos as well buried underneath.

     

    The statues were carved by the Polynesian colonizers of the island, primarily between 1250 CE and 1500 CE. Completed statues were moved to ahu mostly on the coast. They were subsequently erected with red stone cylinders (pukao) on their heads. The actual carving of each statue certainly require tremendous effort and resources. The island was treeless by the time the Europeans first visited, thus the movement of the statues remained a mystery. Since then, pollen analysis has established that the island was almost totally forested until 1200 CE. The tree pollen disappeared from the record by 1650, around the same time the statues stopped being made.

     

    The quarries and stone tools seem to have been abandoned abruptly, leaving many completed sculptures outside the quarry awaiting transport and almost as many incomplete statues still in the quarries. During the nineteenth century this led to conjecture that the island was the remnant of a sunken continent and that most completed moai were under the sea.

     

    That idea has long been debunked.

     

    It is now understood that some statues were rock carvings never intended to be completed. Some were incomplete because inclusions (imperfections or lumps of hard rock) were encountered; in that case the carvers would abandon a partial statue and start a new one. Some completed statues were meant to remain at Rano Raraku. Some were simply incomplete when the sculpture-building came to an end (circa 1500-1650 CE).

     

    (Source, Steven R Fischer. The island at the end of the world. Reaktion Books 2005 ISBN1 86189 282 9. And, Katherine Routledge (1919) The Mystery of Easter Island ISBN 0-932813-48-8 pages 181-186)

     

     

     

     

    CC

  11. perhaps there's some browser problem. :shrug: perhaps we've angered a spirit? :P

     

    here are current screen-shots of your post 62 and my 63. see that your 62 now has added "and oceanic plates"? that wasn't there when i quoted it. :clue: no doubt this exchange will become legend. :rotfl:

     

    Perhaps you are correct. But your complaint was not about continental plate and oceanic plate subduction. It was about oceanic-oceanic subduction (or "seafloor-seafloor" subduction as you call it), which had already been expressed in #57 and strangely enough quoted in your complaint post #61. Of course, I have no way of knowing if you edited my quote in post 63. :P

     

     

    In sum, back on the topic, Rocket's strange claim has been debunked, unless as you pointed out Turtle, erosion was responsible for the vanishing of Mu. But it's going to be quite difficult justifying how an entire continent could erode away in such a short time span, or even during any length of geological time.

     

    Anyway, it appears as if he/she is off to greener pastures where Mu can once again be heard echoing in the distance.

     

     

    EDIT> My bad, he/she's back, and on to the erosion band wagon now. That should be fun to debunk. ;)

     

     

     

     

    CC

  12. well, since you have edited #62, making an apparent mystery of my complaint, i'll just have to take your word for your #57, having no way to determine if it was edited.

     

    Neither post #62 nor #57 were edited after your posts. Perhaps you misread them to begin with? <_<

     

    And you do have a way to determine if #62 or #57 were edited.

     

    EDIT> see your post #61 where you quoted my post #57 (or Rocket's post #58 where he quotes post #57): it is identical. Notice the oceanic-oceanic reference.

     

    EDIT 2> In your post #63 you quoted my entire post #62. They are identical, hence no edit.

     

    The mystery of your complaint remains a mystery.

     

     

    CC

  13. thanks for your correction. now you are half-right inasmuch as there is also seafloor-seafloor subduction; i.e. subduction does not always take place at continental margins.

     

    In post #57 I mentioned:

     

    All of the geological, topographical, tectophysical and paleomagnetic evidence (orientations of glacial striations along with the fossil pattern record) supports the theory of continental drift and oceanic-oceanic plate convergence occurring over timescales of hundreds of millions of years. This process in exceeding slow, it is ongoing and measurable today still.

     

    Oceanic-oceanic plate convergence is obviously a factor to take into consideration, but it is still an extremely slow process.

     

     

     

    CC

  14. while i agree rockety is talking nonsense in regards to conclusions, the sea floor does indeed "sink" at subduction zones. rockety's diagram illustrates this accurately.

     

    Yes, at subduction zones the sea floor does sink (on the edges of continental and oceanic plates) as the plates converge. The problem is he uses this mechanism as a means to explain the disapparition of the mythical continent.

     

    From his second post, it is wrtitten: "Lemuria supposedly existed hundreds of thousands of years ago. This great continent was said to occupy the vast portion of the Pacific Ocean that once stetched from the shores of Japan, the trenches of the Philippine Deep and the Marianas, the Easter Islands, and along the western coast of present day Alaska and California. The legendary continent was said to have finally sunk about 22,600 years ago"

     

    A stretch of sea floor the size of "Mu" (or "Lemuria") could not possibly have disappeared via the subduction process, since it would have taken millions, if not hundreds of millions of years, to do so; as JMJones0424 pointed out earlier.

     

     

    CC

  15. [snip]

     

    Nonsense.

     

    Your claim that geological data supports the sunken continent myth is absurd.

     

    All of the geological, topographical, tectophysical and paleomagnetic evidence (orientations of glacial striations along with the fossil pattern record) supports the theory of continental drift and oceanic-oceanic plate convergence occurring over timescales of hundreds of millions of years. This process in exceeding slow, it is ongoing and measurable today still.

     

    Subduction occurs on the edges of continental plates. It is not due to the sinking of large sheets of the earths crust (or mantle) where a mythical continent once vanished.

     

    The seafloor is spreading, not sinking.

     

    Note the Pacific rim area illustrated below:

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The age of the oceanic crust, in the above image, is illustrated by color. The gradation from red to blue indicates increasing age. Blue represents crust created some 180 million years ago. Red indicates oceanic crust created quite recently on the geologic time scale. Center black lines delineate the mid-oceanic ridge volcanic rift zones. (Source: U.S. Geological Survey)

     

     

    Here is a Quicktime animation.

     

    This animation shows the three-dimensional structure of a "mid-ocean ridge", where two of the Earth's tectonic plates are spreading apart. The Earth's mantle wells up between the separating plates and melts, which feeds magma to active volcanoes along the spreading ridge. This ridge is adjacent to a "subduction zone", which is another setting where active volcanoes form, but due to plates converging instead of spreading apart. Both spreading ridges (like Explorer Ridge) and subduction zones (like the Marianas Arc) make up parts of the Submarine Ring of Fire. Animation by Clay Hamilton and Bill Chadwick. (Source: oceanexplorer.noaa.gov)

     

     

     

    CC

  16. Eulers theorem... hm wasnt it the one proving that you cant comb a haired globe so all hairs fall in the same direction?

     

    See the link provided to you above.

     

     

    My claim is a conjecture? Aw! I dont know that its really that...Its more like a question:

    Can the universe etc etc.I dont have a professional commitment to either one or the other answer:

     

    If you have a question (e.g., about dark energy, the evidence for a nonrotating universe, or the impossibility of a rotating universe), post it in Q&A. Hypographer's will be happy to answer it there.

     

     

    1: Im interested in the matter since its possible that the dark energy eventually might destroy the conditions for life in the universe.

     

    The Big Rip wouldn't happen for another 20 billion years or so. That aspect of dark energy is entirely speculative, and perhaps the least interesting thing about it.

     

     

    2: If it cannot be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy then we have a first indication that our universe is rotating, which also is a first indication that there might be someting for the universe to rotate IN!

     

    It can be shown that centrifugal force is not dark energy and it has been shown that the universe is not rotating. The last part of your sentence makes no sense.

     

     

    3: What happens if I eventually get convinced by your proof, will that settle The Question? No!

     

    The matter is not trivial and I will not be satisfied with proof x until theres a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that x is correct.

     

    There is already a consensus among qualified scrutinizers that "x" is correct: The preponderance of empirical evidence shows that the universe is not rotating around an axis (or several), and there is no empirical evidence supporting the belief (or ignis fatuus) that dark energy is related in any way to centrifugal force.

     

     

     

     

    This thread has nothing to do with dark energy.

    It belongs in the Strange Claims forum.

     

     

     

     

     

    CC

  17. "Set up a situation that presents you with something slightly beyond your reach."

     

    "The philosophical idea that there are no more distances, that we are all just one world, that we are all brothers, is such a drag! I like differences."

     

    ~Brian Eno

×
×
  • Create New...