Science Forums

# Shubee

Members

55

• Rank
Thinking
1. ## A Note To The Linearity Proof Of Lorentz Transformation

Rade, From the snippets you shared, it seems to me that Günther didn’t derive an explicit form of the nonlinear Lorentz transformation, as is done in the paper at http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/ Thanks for your help.
2. ## A Note To The Linearity Proof Of Lorentz Transformation

Rade, I don’t see that you’ve cited any equation that looks like a generalization of the Lorentz transformation.
3. ## A Note To The Linearity Proof Of Lorentz Transformation

Thank you Rade, but I’m particularly interested to know if Günther derived the nonlinear Lorentz transformation between inertial frames of reference in terms of arbitrary synchronization functions. That would be a Lorentz-like transformation equation for space and time coordinates that is logically equivalent to equation numbers (44) and (45) or (54) and (55) of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/
4. ## A Note To The Linearity Proof Of Lorentz Transformation

This abstract by Günther, H. (2003), A note to the linearity proof of Lorentz transformation. PAMM, 3:464–465. doi:10.1002/pamm.200310502 sounds interesting to me. It states, Does anyone here have access to Günther’s note? I’d like to know if Günther actually derived the nonlinear Lorentz transformation based on first principles and arbitrary simultaneity. I’m not a subscriber to that journal and would hate to pay to read an incomplete note. How thoroughly does he develop his comment?
5. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

That's almost correct. I am assuming a worldwide flood (my third axiom) but I am not presupposing any of the specific details in Scripture. Where is it written that I can't borrow all the world's global flood legends and those Biblical passages that indicate a theory of devolution and make scientific postulates out of them? I don't believe that you have grasped the first axiom of quantum creationism. Where is your refutation of the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory? I have answered that question in post #28: One possibility i
6. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

I can't even imagine that to be correct. I think it's obvious that the fossil record is a record of catastrophes and that if we could map the extent of the geological layers, we would see that those catastrophes are on a fantastic scale. I see the evidence in support of a global flood as truly marvelous, exquisite and compelling. Let's talk about the many enormous burial sites that consist of unimaginably large quantities of plant biomass residue and the graveyards of fantastically many, densely packed fossilized remains of assorted animals. Fossil plant remains, such as coal, are almost
7. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

CraigD, I don't have the new book. I simply expect from the advertisement that Penrose would have an added commentary on all of the Mr. Tompkins adventures, including Maxwell's demon.
8. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

I expect that the most likely scholarly reference that might support my thesis would be from Sir Roger Penrose. Have you read the Penrose commentary on Mr. Tompkins?
9. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

There are no acting agents in quantum mechanics. In quantum theory, all the laws of physics are ultimately probabilistic. This is the consensus of all mainstream physicists. It is widely accepted that there are mathematical proofs that no deterministic theory could possibly exist that might account for the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. I believe that the mathematician John von Neumann was the first to prove this result. What does Ockham's razor say about that?
10. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

Ockham's razor is a silly axiom historically. Einstein basically was following Ockham's razor when he repeatedly expressed his preference for the simplicity of determinism over the complexity of quantum theory. Einstein kept insisting on his view with the now infamous words: "God does not play dice." To this Bohr famously replied: "Einstein, stop telling God what to do." I agree that Ockham's razor is simple but surely you don't believe that it is always true? Determinism is dead. Only an ignoramus can confidently reject quantum theory today. That sounds like a tautology to me. W
11. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

CraigD, your mangled misrepresentation of the story of Maxwell's Demon (pp. 72- 76) is terribly misleading. First off, George Gamow's highly imaginative story is just a story. And in that story, the fantastically improbable really happens. This is clear from the fact that the professor basically says how lucky the three of them are to see an event that will probably never happen again in the whole history of the universe. The structure of the story is obvious from these excepts: Maud is obviously dreaming at this point. And what happens in Maud's dream is obviously a mix of learning p
12. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

Not exactly. I'm saying that when it concerns particles of light or matter in motion, there are no limits to improbability at any time. For example, the Nobel Laureate in physics, Richard P. Feynman, explained in his book, QED, that there is a very small probability for photons (individual particles of light) to move faster than the usual numerical value c, which is just the most likely expected value. Yes to both. I believe that those two scenarios are possible outcomes to the equations of quantum theory. Why? Why a religious book written by desert people in the Bronze Age? You'
13. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

That's fair enough. I shall first summarize the fundamental physics of quantum creationism, which is based on the mathematical proposition that there is no limit to improbability in quantum theory. And I'll also share how I came to understand the fundamentals of this physical theory. I was taught quantum improbability in high school. My high school physics teacher, Laurence N. Wolfe, explained it to the class. He said there was a very small probability for all the air molecules in the classroom to suddenly all be moving in the direction of the west wall of the room, knocking it down. I insta
14. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

My guess is that you are using Microsoft's Internet Explorer 7.0 with the default setting, which is set to not let you see any embedded YouTube videos. The second YouTube video in my last post on page 3 answers 'how it is possible' directly. The first video in my preceding post clearly shows, according to evolutionists, how man evolved out of ooze in the primordial soup. That's quite a transformation. That was my proof.
15. ## Is It Possible To Remake Creationism Into A Scientific Theory?

That's a very nicely stated claim. Can you also supply the proof? I regard the mechanism "survival of the fittest" as a tautology and consider the claim that scientists never insinuate religious, long-term conclusions for the theory of evolution as clever propaganda. If evolution in biology only means change over time, then I suppose that I'm a creationist-evolutionist that accepts natural selection. Have you ever watched the series, The Ascent of Man on TV? Ascent means "movement upward from a lower to a higher state, degree, grade, or status; advancement." That's exactly what many e
×