2 of 7
2
“Facts Only”
Posted: 25 August 2007 09:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I have no knowledge of the astronomical situation you mention so I’ll leave that for others.  However, you strongly misstated the basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution.  Rather, it is that random mutations occur.  Many have little effect on the organism’s ability to function and survive.  Many are damaging so those organisms tend to die out because they can’t function as well in the environment.  Occasionally a mutation occurs which gives the organism an advantage that the others of its species don’t have it is more likely to survive and procreate.  Over time, this particular mutation becomes distributed throughout the species.  Since we are dealing with over a hundred billion days and probably millions of trillions of organisms over that time, the probability of positive mutations becomes very high.  Of course, there were many more negative mutations, but they didn’t get passed on unless they were minor, or if they were recessive so showed up only when two of them occurred in one individual.

This is only a simple explanation.  There are also cases where a change in the environment makes a formerly neutral mutation positive, or where a series of mutations over millions of years function together to benefit the individual more than the mere sum of them would predict.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 August 2007 11:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
Occam - 25 August 2007 09:22 PM

I have no knowledge of the astronomical situation you mention so I’ll leave that for others. However, you strongly misstated the basic tenet of Darwinian Evolution. Rather, it is that random mutations occur. Many have little effect on the organism’s ability to function and survive. Many are damaging so those organisms tend to die out because they can’t function as well in the environment. Occasionally a mutation occurs which gives the organism an advantage that the others of its species don’t have it is more likely to survive and procreate. Over time, this particular mutation becomes distributed throughout the species. Since we are dealing with over a hundred billion days and probably millions of trillions of organisms over that time, the probability of positive mutations becomes very high. Of course, there were many more negative mutations, but they didn’t get passed on unless they were minor, or if they were recessive so showed up only when two of them occurred in one individual.

This is only a simple explanation. There are also cases where a change in the environment makes a formerly neutral mutation positive, or where a series of mutations over millions of years function together to benefit the individual more than the mere sum of them would predict.

Occam

I understand your point but you seem to misunderstand Darwin’s point.

Darwin said in his Recapitulation and Conclusion chapter the following:

“As natural selection acts solely by accumulating slight, successive, favourable variations, it can produce no great or sudden modification; it can act only by very short and slow steps.”

What about factual events? The mutations in species are consequences of changes in the internal and external environment of the organisms.

Millions of years, eh?

Lets say that you have species exposed to changes due to a combination of volcanic eruptions with earthquakes which change hills and zones of trees into plains. The species are affected by the physical and chemical exposure of the portents. Don’t think that species will become stronger than before, on the contrary, the hard consequences of finding food, the contamination of the land and water by several dead organisms, the forced change of diet and the breathing of fumes will cause to the pregnant females to deliver off-springs with possible birth defects and the off-springs will born weaker.

Lets say that a bird which used to fly lost its ability to do so because the wings were atrophied by the chemical exposure on his ancestors. This is found as a common effect in birds exposed to DDT which delivered very weak egg shells and their offspring were exposed to died in this stage due to the cracking of the egg shell.

Well, the bird cannot fly anymore, now this bird has to walk and run and swim only. As a physical compensation to the atrophied wings the organism of this bird acquires stronger legs. The scenario of the life of this bird depends of the quality of food and the amount of predators which survived the events as well. It is assumed that the predators might have suffered some mutations as well.

Where is the “favourable variation only” mentioned by Darwin? The bird found itself without useful wings… The bird is forced now to live on land all the time… If its diet was fish because it can catch it by flying over water, now that the river has changed its direction and the bird cannot fly, this bird will eat mice, fruit as a variable diet. The reproduction quantity might decrease by several reasons until it adapts to the new environment.

Look at humans exposed to radiation, children are born with birth defects (mutations) and the defects are passed generation to generation.

Are you going to tell me that these birth defects (mutations) are “positive”?

Read the articles about radiation in Russia causing mutations which are expected to last for several more generations. Where is the positive out-coming?

Show me the positive changes in humans in recent decades, if not the increase of obesity, asthma, diabetes, autism, and more, show me a notorious positive change in humans which is noticeable so I can believe in such theory. So far, today I can only see negative changes everywhere in every species. And I do not see any difference between today than yesterday, because records confirmed that nuclear chain reactions happened on earth long ago, residuals of such event are found in Africa as an example.

Having species exposed to such radiation, we won’t expect “positive changes” when today the changes are observed as negative.

From the report of the nuclear bombs in Japan, a minimum amount of people who were exposed to low radiation levels showed an increased longevity, this is less than 2% of the affected people who died or that still showing the negative effects of such exposure in their off-springs.

One thing is what evolutionists believe in base of their theory and a different scenario is what we witness today with the changes in the environment. For example, mention the species which are getting positive mutations due to the current changes in the world. So far, we are observing several species going into extinction, deformed frogs, extinction of birds, more diseases around, and negative mutations in the entire group of micro-organisms.

Lets see about micro-organisms. Some bacteria is stronger to drugs but weaker to their capabilities to perform former duties. As an example, a microbe which used to eat our sugars, by the effect of antibiotics used wrongly this microbe changed its diet and now eats our immune system cells…but it doesn’t eat our sugars anymore.

Do you call to that “positive mutations?”

Lets be more realistic. Instead of consulting the doctrines of the theory of evolution, why not review the changes in the species and name the changes with the most accurate definition which applies to each case, for example, the species disappears, we call to this: “extinction”. The species loose some capabilities and physical and functional characteristics, we call to this “degeneration”. The species changes its characteristics by other new ones, we call it “adaptation”. And so and so.

After you have made the review in this way, check how many “positive and negative” mutations you find in the species.

Again, today is not different than yesterday in this scenario, the changes still happening like they happened in former generations, so, if species changed before the species still changing today. You don’t need to wait a million years to notice the changes, right now we are witnessing the changes and nothing supports positive variations as Darwin proposed.

Please close your book of evolution and observe our real world. I’m not against your words but an impartial review on Darwin’s words clearly demonstrates that he was incorrect.

[ Edited: 26 August 2007 12:40 AM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 12:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2006-11-28

We already have a long and tedious thread where conquer argues that none of us understand evolution and that it, as he understands it, is false. We don’t need another one. I’m not sure what this thread actually is about, but maybe we could pick something else? How about, “Fact or Fiction-Who decides?” At least that would get us to talking about epistemology, or something philosophical, and it could lead to some sort of agreement, as conquer seemed to suggest he was looking for in the original post (though I’m skeptical).

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 12:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
mckenzievmd - 26 August 2007 12:02 AM

We already have a long and tedious thread where conquer argues that none of us understand evolution and that it, as he understands it, is false. We don’t need another one. I’m not sure what this thread actually is about, but maybe we could pick something else? How about, “Fact or Fiction-Who decides?” At least that would get us to talking about epistemology, or something philosophical, and it could lead to some sort of agreement, as conquer seemed to suggest he was looking for in the original post (though I’m skeptical).

I agree with you.

I posted before the case of the wife of Lot (the biblical guy) as an example of a possible fact in Religion, the purpose wasn’t to discuss religion but to check the possiblities if such biblical event could happened in reality.

I just followed the thread when the theory of evolution appeared again, and I put current observable facts to check the theory. This was my mistake, because by taking the theory out of discussion we can still have observable facts which can be reviewed without implying the doctrines of this theory.

Like it was intenteded before by making a review of a biblical event without discussing religious doctrines, I guess that several facts can be reviewed to check their veracity without compromising the doctrines found in religions or theories of science.

Thank you for your message, and please accept my apologies.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 02:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Thanks Brennen.  I had ignored the prior threads, but thought I’d try this one.  I now realize that conquer refuses to understand the logic of evolution and is merely an evangelist for his silly faith-based beliefs.  As such, this is my last post in this thread.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 11:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
conquer - 25 August 2007 07:41 PM

Lets go a little further. The orbit of Mercury presents a weird phenomenon in its periphelion, several decades ago a scientist called Le Verrier explained in numbers with incredible accuracy such orbit with the assumption that another twin planet (Vulcan) existed and caused such phenomenon. In those years some astronomers said that they witnessed that indeed besides Mercury another planet has been observed in the same orbit. Further observations deleted such theory because such planet wasn’t seen anymore.

No one knows for sure if another planet existed orbiting with Mercury as its twin planet, but the calculations made by Le Verrier suited with great accuracy the observed motion of Mercury at its periphelion.

The lack of “facts” deleted Le Verrier’s calculations even when they were in accord with the observations.

In this case the lack of evidence of an existing planet was the fact which ruled against Le Verrier’s calculations.

If scientists need new data to check their previous views, sometimes to have “no data” to support their current views is the “fact” which rules against their views as we notice with Le Verrier’s assumed existing planet.

Huh? Le Verrier’s 1843 math was corrected in 1882. The more observation techniques improved the more Le Verrier’s claims failed.  Applying Einstein’s 1915 theory of General Relativity made the need for an additional body unnecessary.  Better math and better measurements combined with a more parsimonious theory lead to the disfavoring of a previous theory.  With your vague and often curious use of language (“deleted” theories?) it’s difficult to make out what you think this story illustrates.  Why is this not an example of science at its best?

[ Edited: 26 August 2007 11:49 AM by the PC apeman ]
 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
Occam - 26 August 2007 02:00 AM

Thanks Brennen.  I had ignored the prior threads, but thought I’d try this one.  I now realize that conquer refuses to understand the logic of evolution and is merely an evangelist for his silly faith-based beliefs.  As such, this is my last post in this thread.

Occam

Nice try Occam, but I am not a religious person, and the evolution of Darwin with favourable variations only in species is false,

For this reason his doctrines has been replaced by new ones which are their opposite. (Gold stating that changes do not need to be gradual and slow, variations can be positive or negative, and so and so).

[ Edited: 26 August 2007 07:53 PM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 07:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
the PC apeman - 26 August 2007 11:43 AM
conquer - 25 August 2007 07:41 PM

Lets go a little further. The orbit of Mercury presents a weird phenomenon in its periphelion, several decades ago a scientist called Le Verrier explained in numbers with incredible accuracy such orbit with the assumption that another twin planet (Vulcan) existed and caused such phenomenon. In those years some astronomers said that they witnessed that indeed besides Mercury another planet has been observed in the same orbit. Further observations deleted such theory because such planet wasn’t seen anymore.

No one knows for sure if another planet existed orbiting with Mercury as its twin planet, but the calculations made by Le Verrier suited with great accuracy the observed motion of Mercury at its periphelion.

The lack of “facts” deleted Le Verrier’s calculations even when they were in accord with the observations.

In this case the lack of evidence of an existing planet was the fact which ruled against Le Verrier’s calculations.

If scientists need new data to check their previous views, sometimes to have “no data” to support their current views is the “fact” which rules against their views as we notice with Le Verrier’s assumed existing planet.

Huh? Le Verrier’s 1843 math was corrected in 1882. The more observation techniques improved the more Le Verrier’s claims failed.  Applying Einstein’s 1915 theory of General Relativity made the need for an additional body unnecessary.  Better math and better measurements combined with a more parsimonious theory lead to the disfavoring of a previous theory.  With your vague and often curious use of language (“deleted” theories?) it’s difficult to make out what you think this story illustrates.  Why is this not an example of science at its best?

Lets see.

Le Verrier calculations weren’t considered as realistically possible because no other planet has been observed to support his formulas. The lack of a physically existing planet discarded the numbers of Le Verrier.

Lets apply the same to Einstein’s formulas.

Einstein believed that time was physically existent and that flows and dilates. As today, there is not a single evidence which supports the idea of a physically existing time. By consequence, the formulas of Einstein are discarded regardless of how accurate are shown in paper.

You must understand that before trusting the formulas of Einstein you must be sure that his claims about a physically existing time are correct. No physical existing time means no flowing of time and neither a dilatation of time.

Le Verrier and Einstein added imaginary objects or things in order to fill up the desired factor which will make their formulas accurate enough to fit with the observations.

Reality is that neither a twin planet Vulcano existed and neither is a physically existing time.

I think that some web sites are explaining the periphelion of Mercury without the need of imaginary dilatations of time. I’ll check about them later on.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
conquer - 26 August 2007 07:42 PM

Einstein believed that time was physically existent and that flows and dilates. As today, there is not a single evidence which supports the idea of a physically existing time. By consequence, the formulas of Einstein are discarded regardless of how accurate are shown in paper.

This is false. Einstein’s view on time dilation has been proven correct on multiple occasions, with synchronized clocks flown on airplanes, and with atomic decay in particle accelerators. See: time dilation. Time dilation is as well confirmed as any experimental result in physics.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 August 2007 09:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
conquer - 26 August 2007 07:42 PM

Le Verrier and Einstein added imaginary objects or things in order to fill up the desired factor which will make their formulas accurate enough to fit with the observations.

Le Verrier made a well reasoned proposal for the existence of another planet based on the information available to him.  He turned out to be wrong.  You make it sound like he nearly got away with fraud.  Einstein noticed that all accelerated systems are equivalent and that led to a well reasoned proposal for a non-Euclidean universe.  Unlike Le Verrier’s, his theory has so far stood up to scrutiny and experimentation.  Both started out as hypotheses, conjectures.  Some pan out some don’t.  I still don’t see your point.  Will future discoveries demonstrate Einstein was wrong?  Maybe.  All you have to do is propose a competing theory with more explanatory power.  If experimentation supports it, science will bestow its highest honors upon you.

[ Edited: 26 August 2007 09:31 PM by the PC apeman ]
 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
dougsmith - 26 August 2007 09:21 PM
conquer - 26 August 2007 07:42 PM

Einstein believed that time was physically existent and that flows and dilates. As today, there is not a single evidence which supports the idea of a physically existing time. By consequence, the formulas of Einstein are discarded regardless of how accurate are shown in paper.

This is false. Einstein’s view on time dilation has been proven correct on multiple occasions, with synchronized clocks flown on airplanes, and with atomic decay in particle accelerators. See: time dilation. Time dilation is as well confirmed as any experimental result in physics.

With my elementary school child I made a science project some years ago to check what environment affects more a watch.

For this purpose we acquire 6 watches of the same brand. We set the times on them and the distribution was as it follows:

1)- One watch was hung in the living room. One watch was put in the freezer compartment of the refrigerator. One watch was taped to a fan. One watch was put inside a jar to,which we took the air out by burning a match inside.. One watch was put half inch from the exhaust heating pipe (variable temperatures), and the last one was put outside the window pane facing inside the house.

2)- The time data given by the watches was check daily. We had disparate results about rates of variations but 4 of them slowed their data, while the one hung in the livingroom wall and the one inside the jar were given the same synchronisation.

3)- The one in the refrigerator gave an almost a stable rate of slowing of 6 seconds per day.

4)- In order to check the experiment with a variable we change the location to two watches, the one in the livingroom was put in the freezer and the one which was inside the jar was hung in the living-room wall.

5)- Again, the cold temperature affected the watch at a rate of 6 seconds per day.

You can do the experiment in your house as well and I can tell you that the results will be the same: the watches will be affected by the change of their environment.

This simple experiment demonstrated that clocks can malfunction at a steady rate in certain circumstances.
Now, I will ask you: Are you gonna tell me that time flows slowly at low temperatures?

There are several reasons which can demonstrate the falsity of such tests made by some relativists.

Before I give the solid explanations with full details, I should like from you to provide the explanation given the mechanism of the unstable particles which appear to last longer in the accelerator, and to provide the experiments made:

a)- About time data variation in a clock solely with speed at ground level in comparison with another clock at rest on ground.

b)- Time data variation of a clock at rest in low gravity in comparison with a clock on ground at rest as well.

Why do I ask for these tests?

Very simple: You cannot give results of tests based in assumptions or calculations alone. This is to say, if you claim that speed will dilate time, you must do the experiments with clocks located on the same level of gravity in order to check the veracity of your claims.

In order to check the variation of data by effects of gravity both clocks must be at rest in order to check their accuracy.

If by any means you cannot perform the tests according to my request, such tests can be considered as invalid. I will give my reasons:

I)- When the clocks in outer space started to malfunction the relativists managed to include their imaginary time distortion by effects of speed and low gravity.

II)- For this purpose they invented some calculations based in their imaginations which were set as it follows:

a)- As time dilated for the speed of the spacecraft some fractions of a second through calculation methods were added.

b)- As time contracted by the low gravity some fractions of a second were subtracted through calculation methods.

So, we have the scenario that no one has checked the veracity of such “calculations” with independent tests made with both clocks at the same gravitational pressure, one at rest the other one in motion, and, both clocks at rest located one on ground and the other one in outer space.

So, you have a case of mere assumptions.

About the airplanes carrying atomic clocks given different time data, one airplane going to West the other going to East.

Explain such results here. Are you gonna tell me that in Venus with a retrograde rotation in comparison to Earth time flows backwards? What about the orbits of satellites like Ananke, ACrme, Pasiphae, Sinope, Phoebe and Triton? Is time flowing backwards in them?

Come on, such deluded imaginations of a flowing and dilating time sound more like a hoax than anything else.

(Note: I tried to edit the information given by Wikipedia about this matter about time some months ago. I added a paragraph saying that time doesn’t exist physically and that such ideas of time dilatation and clocks measuring the flowing of time were no more than assumptions. I left the rest of the article intact.

I received a letter from the administrator of Wikipedia telling me that he took out my addition because “even when the claims about time dilatation are true or not the sources of the article are verifiable”

Yes, the “sources of the article are verifiable” but the sources themselves are not. When I tried to write him back to his link for mail purposes, the first words in his page was “Shalom”. After I saw this word I did rest my case: No Jewish person in this world will accept that Einstein was wrong because Einstein’s picture appears in a former monetary bill of Israel as a great genius. To demonstrate that Einstein was not only in error but that the theories of Relativity are practically fantasies is for them a case of pride against reality.)

[ Edited: 29 August 2007 11:25 AM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 11:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
the PC apeman - 26 August 2007 09:28 PM
conquer - 26 August 2007 07:42 PM

Le Verrier and Einstein added imaginary objects or things in order to fill up the desired factor which will make their formulas accurate enough to fit with the observations.

Le Verrier made a well reasoned proposal for the existence of another planet based on the information available to him. He turned out to be wrong. You make it sound like he nearly got away with fraud. Einstein noticed that all accelerated systems are equivalent and that led to a well reasoned proposal for a non-Euclidean universe. Unlike Le Verrier’s, his theory has so far stood up to scrutiny and experimentation. Both started out as hypotheses, conjectures. Some pan out some don’t. I still don’t see your point. Will future discoveries demonstrate Einstein was wrong? Maybe. All you have to do is propose a competing theory with more explanatory power. If experimentation supports it, science will bestow its highest honors upon you.

No, on the contrary, some circumstances indeed back up Le Verrier’s calculations because there were witness which claimed the observation of such twin planet of Mercury in the same orbit. But, later on more accurate observations demonstrated that such additional planet didn’t exist.

The same scenario is happening with Relativity. Einstein claimed a physically flowing time in base of ancient philosophical ideas which were the conventional thought. Today, with the requirement of the scientific method such physical flowing of time is not found in any experiment dedicated solely for this purpose. By consequence, the physical flowing of time still is a mere assumption and no more than that.

The current experiments which has been took as granted to support Relativity are misinterpretations of illusions.

First, clocks cannot measure any physical passage of time. This is factual and it must be recognized as such.

Second, there are several explanations which are more accurate but are not considered for review because they can hurt an established theory not because the explanations are false or erroneous.

Third, if Relativity is correct the only thing needed to vindicate it is to provide the solid evidence that time exists physically and that it’s flowing can be perceived by instruments.

Otherwise, the theories which imply time as physically existent are all of them false.

Can you establish in a BBQ that you are cooking cow meat without the solid evidence that cows exist in reality? No, the cows must exist first and must be perceived as such in order for you to say that the Rib Eye you are cooking comes from a cow.

If cows don’t exist, your meat must come from any other animal.

It is essential the basic fact or existing primeval phenomenon in order to create a theory of science. You don’t have this primeval fact and your theory won’t be more than philosophical thoughts.

[ Edited: 29 August 2007 11:27 AM by conquer ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 12:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20
conquer - 29 August 2007 11:20 AM

No, on the contrary, some circumstances indeed back up Le Verrier’s calculations because there were witness which claimed the observation of such twin planet of Mercury in the same orbit. But, later on more accurate observations demonstrated that such additional planet didn’t exist.

This is not at all contrary to what I wrote. Things were witnessed that have other, now more plausible, explanations. Your Leverrier-Einstein comparison only points out what is already known: science is a self-refining methodology. As I see it, if you disagree with current scientific thinking you have two choices:

1) You can work within science’s method to produce a better theory. What are the experiments that support your ideas? Who in particular is suppressing them? Between your recent responses to dougsmith and me you’re beginning to sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist.

2) You can reject science’s method and substitute your own. Are there some fundamental axioms you wish to refute or propose? What method of knowing would you suggest? Should we rely more on emotion or faith?

Or perhaps you can think of a third alternative. In any case it would serve you well to make sure you are presenting your opponents case correctly.

It’s been quite difficult to decipher where you stand. It seems you wish to do away with all speculative ideas and yet you provide little else but speculative ideas. However, it is good that you are expressing your thoughts. I encourage you to continue doing so. I’d especially encourage you to share them with people who are close and care about your well-being. Such people are likely to be better situated for addressing your current and future needs.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 August 2007 01:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
conquer - 29 August 2007 11:20 AM

First, clocks cannot measure any physical passage of time. This is factual and it must be recognized as such.

What do you mean by “physical passage of time”? If clocks don’t measure time, what do they measure? If they don’t measure anything, what do they do?

conquer - 29 August 2007 11:20 AM

Second, there are several explanations which are more accurate but are not considered for review because they can hurt an established theory not because the explanations are false or erroneous.

Which ones? What data can you provide that these explanations are “more accurate” than relativity?

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 September 2007 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  142
Joined  2007-07-28
the PC apeman - 29 August 2007 12:35 PM

As I see it, if you disagree with current scientific thinking you have two choices:

1) You can work within science’s method to produce a better theory. What are the experiments that support your ideas? Who in particular is suppressing them? Between your recent responses to dougsmith and me you’re beginning to sound a bit like a conspiracy theorist.

“Conspiracy theorist”? Lol. I am showing you in your face that time doesn’t exist physically and there is nothing in this world to prove the contrary but several facts through the scientific method to back up my statements. Contrary to your beliefs, it is not necessary to “replace a theory with another” but the discarding of theories can be made solely by their lack of scientific evidence.
In this case, Relativity and other theories like Black Holes pulling time are mere fantasies when are confronted against reality, and several other explanations can be given to certain phenomena in base of each particular factual event.

For example, you have the theory of Black Holes. Do you know how this theory started? This idea of a body pulling its own light was invented with mathematical calculations by John Michell.

He wrote in a piece of paper that an object would need to have a speed greater than one five-hundred the speed of light to escape the Sun. This is 1783, and Michell argued that a star 590 times as large as the Sun and of the same average density would prevent even light from escaping. These are his words: “All light emitted from such a body would be made to return to it by its own power of gravity”.

Look, I want you -please- to repeat the words of Michell at least ten times, now, go to a store book and pull the book The New Time Travelers: A Journey to the Frontiers of Physicsby David Toomey, and read what Toomey says about Michell. In order to save you the trip to the book store, I can advance the words of Toomey, Toomey says that Michell predicted the Black Holes pulling of light “by the collapsing of a star”.

Tell me now, are the words of Toomey “an error”? Lol, of course no. His words are simply lies. The campaign to continue with the fantasies of time traveling is incredibly powerful, it is not science but it is good business.

You can call to this simple demonstration a “conspiracy theory” if you want to, I call it “showing the lies”. Instead of giving another theory as you are suggesting I think that the measure is to contact others who disagree with these lies and suit these deceivers at once for all.

2) You can reject science’s method and substitute your own. Are there some fundamental axioms you wish to refute or propose? What method of knowing would you suggest? Should we rely more on emotion or faith?

Actually your acceptance of a physically flowing time is your act of faith because a fact is not.

Or perhaps you can think of a third alternative. In any case it would serve you well to make sure you are presenting your opponents case correctly.

That should be great. Look, what I write here is not against science, on the contrary, my position is to maintain the seriousness of science to prevail over special interests which are looking for profit instead of the spread of knowledge.

Their motto that “imaginations are more important than knowledge” is so stupid that they themselves are trapped in their own lies. Hawking is a good example, this individual already has recognized that time traveling is not possible at all because the laws of physics won’t allowed it. Do you know what? Since 1998 I have been participating in forums like the NBC when they started with forums on-line (Mysteries of the Universe) and I clearly stated that Relativity is false because there is not a single law of physics which support it.

Like today in these forums, lots of guys argued years ago against my words but no one presented a single law of physics which supports the idea of a physical passage of time.

It’s been quite difficult to decipher where you stand. It seems you wish to do away with all speculative ideas and yet you provide little else but speculative ideas. However, it is good that you are expressing your thoughts. I encourage you to continue doing so. I’d especially encourage you to share them with people who are close and care about your well-being. Such people are likely to be better situated for addressing your current and future needs.

I stand for science based in facts and perceived phenomena over deluded imaginations to create theories of science.

From here, any theory which lacks of a primeval fact or phenomenon must be discarded without questions.

It won’t matter how famous is the theory, but as long as its base foundation is no more than imaginary events the theory must go.

It is very simple, a clean up event to keep the theories which are based in realistic events and discard theories based in fantasies, because the physical flowing of time is not a mere imagination anymore, the addition that this imaginary flowing of time can be subjected to dilatation makes this imagination to become a fantasy.

At this moment several organizations (check the web) are claiming the falsity of Relativity, at this moment they are not organized, but, I think that establishing a starting point to present a solid document to demonstrate how errors about time became lies in theories in science, I guess that in a near future the new generations will be free of such deceiver theories of today and the benefit will be for everybody in general. Of course, this is like the campaign against cigarette companies, it should become practically an intellectual war.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 7
2