Page 8 of 24

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:19 pm
by MIG29pilot
Lydiot wrote:
MIG29pilot wrote:I know what you are going to say; We aren't. I answer: There are two theories about the shape of the universe: One says it is a three dimensional space, with a definite center; think of the inside of a balloon. The other says that the universe is like the surface of that balloon, or the surface of the earth; definite distance and size, but no center.
BOTH are only theories.


The word "theory" should be used with caution.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

I doubt that's what you mean when you use the word. If that's what you mean then you also invalidate our understanding of electromagnetism, because it too is "just a theory".

However solid a theory may be, they are not fact. They, while seeming perfectly true today, may seem absurd tomorrow. Medieval doctors could have given you a whole book on the Doctrine of Humours. We now know better. Never mistake a theory for a fact.
MIG29pilot wrote:The first has the evidence of daily experience, of the fact that we know that it is clear to see that the universe is three-dimensional space in its favour.
The other has the word of a handful of persons who don't want to be in the centre of the universe.


Actually, I don't think you're right for a couple of reasons (and I'm thereby not saying the universe is "three dimensional").

First of all, we can't trust our "daily experience", because to a lot of people the earth looks flat, and it looks as if the sun revolves around the earth. Surely you claim neither is true, right? We've evolved to perceive four dimensions to the extent they're useful to our species. A very very small creature, to the extent it can perceive dimensions, probably perceives only two. That's because it can get traction and climb almost any surface in any direction. Thinks spider but far smaller. To it there's no meaningful distinction between two and three dimensions. As the surface "turns" it just follows along on it. No worries about falling or anything. But a cat for example has to worry about three dimensions. If they're at the edge of a cliff they have to be careful because they can hurt themselves falling down. So once they're beyond a certain height it's a problem. But they probably don't care about whether the height is a mountain or a hill with a steep cliff. We on the other hand do care. That's because when we migrate, and we do, we have problems with crossing mountains as opposed to hills. If we're looking for fertile soil it's an issue. In addition to that we care about time because we can use that to our advantage when farming. So while a cat probably doesn't care or even is aware of seasons, we do.
The only reason the spider thinks life is two dimensional is he can't see very far. Same with people; our view is obstructed by terrain and our naturally low position. Go to see and you are able to see the curve. Go to space and you will see how it is a sphere. And wherever you are looking, whatever you see, the earth is still a sphere--unless you say that it changes shape depending on where you are.
So once they're beyond a certain height it's a problem. But they probably don't care about whether the height is a mountain or a hill with a steep cliff. We on the other hand do care. That's because when we migrate, and we do, we have problems with crossing mountains as opposed to hills. If we're looking for fertile soil it's an issue. In addition to that we care about time because we can use that to our advantage when farming. So while a cat probably doesn't care or even is aware of seasons, we do.
Whether we don't care about things does not mean they don't exist, if that's what your trying to say. I don't vanish when you finish reading my post. At least, I hope not :( :o :? :shock: .
Our "daily experience" is absolutely no good basis for making statements about these sorts of things. If it was then you wouldn't be making the statements you are to me right now, because we would never have found the electron or understood electricity and formulated an accurate theory of electromagnetism (needed for computers).

Secondly, even if space is three dimensional it doesn't mean what you think it does if the universe is expanding. If the universe is three dimensional and expanding, consider being in one of the "points" in the following image:

Image

As that "cube" or "universe" expands ALL "points" move away from each other. Since that's the case, the "experience" on ANY of those "points" will be ALL other points moving away from it. In other words, in a three dimensional expanding universe it will look like you're in the center regardless of where you actually are.


Let me remind you that it was "daily experience" which led Maxwell to all this stuff; that all discoveries are "daily experience" because they are part of a working universe, our universe.
As for that pic, it doesn't matter what dotty sees, he's not in the middle. If he was loking from a better viewpoint he would see that. That shape has a definite, calculable point which is the center.

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:22 pm
by MIG29pilot
Lydiot wrote:
MIG29pilot wrote:I know what you are going to say; We aren't. I answer: There are two theories about the shape of the universe: One says it is a three dimensional space, with a definite center; think of the inside of a balloon. The other says that the universe is like the surface of that balloon, or the surface of the earth; definite distance and size, but no center.
BOTH are only theories.


The word "theory" should be used with caution.

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

I doubt that's what you mean when you use the word. If that's what you mean then you also invalidate our understanding of electromagnetism, because it too is "just a theory".

However solid a theory may be, they are not fact. They, while seeming perfectly true today, may seem absurd tomorrow. Medieval doctors could have given you a whole book on the Doctrine of Humours. We now know better. Never mistake a theory for a fact.
MIG29pilot wrote:The first has the evidence of daily experience, of the fact that we know that it is clear to see that the universe is three-dimensional space in its favour.
The other has the word of a handful of persons who don't want to be in the centre of the universe.


Actually, I don't think you're right for a couple of reasons (and I'm thereby not saying the universe is "three dimensional").

First of all, we can't trust our "daily experience", because to a lot of people the earth looks flat, and it looks as if the sun revolves around the earth. Surely you claim neither is true, right? We've evolved to perceive four dimensions to the extent they're useful to our species. A very very small creature, to the extent it can perceive dimensions, probably perceives only two. That's because it can get traction and climb almost any surface in any direction. Thinks spider but far smaller. To it there's no meaningful distinction between two and three dimensions. As the surface "turns" it just follows along on it. No worries about falling or anything. But a cat for example has to worry about three dimensions. If they're at the edge of a cliff they have to be careful because they can hurt themselves falling down. So once they're beyond a certain height it's a problem. But they probably don't care about whether the height is a mountain or a hill with a steep cliff. We on the other hand do care. That's because when we migrate, and we do, we have problems with crossing mountains as opposed to hills. If we're looking for fertile soil it's an issue. In addition to that we care about time because we can use that to our advantage when farming. So while a cat probably doesn't care or even is aware of seasons, we do.

The only reason the spider thinks life is two dimensional is he can't see very far. Same with people; our view is obstructed by terrain and our naturally low position. Go to see and you are able to see the curve. Go to space and you will see how it is a sphere. And wherever you are looking, whatever you see, the earth is still a sphere--unless you say that it changes shape depending on where you are.
So once they're beyond a certain height it's a problem. But they probably don't care about whether the height is a mountain or a hill with a steep cliff. We on the other hand do care. That's because when we migrate, and we do, we have problems with crossing mountains as opposed to hills. If we're looking for fertile soil it's an issue. In addition to that we care about time because we can use that to our advantage when farming. So while a cat probably doesn't care or even is aware of seasons, we do.
Whether we don't care about things does not mean they don't exist, if that's what your trying to say. I don't vanish when you finish reading my post. At least, I hope not :( :o :? :shock: .
Our "daily experience" is absolutely no good basis for making statements about these sorts of things. If it was then you wouldn't be making the statements you are to me right now, because we would never have found the electron or understood electricity and formulated an accurate theory of electromagnetism (needed for computers).

Secondly, even if space is three dimensional it doesn't mean what you think it does if the universe is expanding. If the universe is three dimensional and expanding, consider being in one of the "points" in the following image:

Image

As that "cube" or "universe" expands ALL "points" move away from each other. Since that's the case, the "experience" on ANY of those "points" will be ALL other points moving away from it. In other words, in a three dimensional expanding universe it will look like you're in the center regardless of where you actually are.


Let me remind you that it was "daily experience" which led Maxwell to all this stuff; that all discoveries are "daily experience" because they are part of a working universe, our universe.
As for that pic, it doesn't matter what dotty sees, he's not in the middle. If he was loking from a better viewpoint he would see that. That shape has a definite, calculable point which is the center.[/quote]

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:23 pm
by MIG29pilot
I can't help but think that these damnable evolutionists and Big Bangers are deliberately trying to sabotage truth and reason and logic for the sake of their Big Bang

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:30 pm
by MIG29pilot
AND FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND ACT LIKE MEN!
Read the arguments and consider them all; make no assumptions, believe no theories; prove everything
Or are we too proud? How much has the scientific community been tainted by ride? By not wanting to surrender? By wishing to be correct? How many scientific and archeological samples have been locked away, so as to not been known by the duped public? How many lies have been told? I wonder
By the way Lester did you read that document I posted?

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:38 pm
by Lydiot
MIG29pilot wrote:However solid a theory may be, they are not fact. They, while seeming perfectly true today, may seem absurd tomorrow. Medieval doctors could have given you a whole book on the Doctrine of Humours. We now know better. Never mistake a theory for a fact.


I'm not, and the scientific community in general does not either. Gravity is a fact we can easily test by stepping off a tall ladder. Our expectation is generally that we won't levitate but instead fall down. We can formulate hypotheses based on that and further test them. Scientists do that all the time. To the extent that we can actually objectively "know" something science is currently the best option. Of course a theory can be invalidated, but it's done by proving it wrong using the scientific method.

It seems to me that what you are attempting to say is that facts are facts, but they can't be proven using science. But we're just heading down a path of semantics and philosophy where the last stop is "anything goes". Because while we probably both agree that something either is or is not the case, regardless of our thoughts about it, we will have different opinions about how to evaluate what is most likely. Some things are so likely we simply call them "true" for convenience. It makes no sense to object to any and all casual statements on the basis that they could be untrue if considering quantum mechanics for example. So if I say "Don't jump: You'll fall!" it'd be meaningless to say "Well, you don't fully know that for a fact. I mean, it's likely, but not the only possibility."

MIG29pilot wrote:Let me remind you that it was "daily experience" which led Maxwell to all this stuff; that all discoveries are "daily experience" because they are part of a working universe, our universe.


And they initially constituted hypotheses, not theories. If "daily experience" was sufficient then we wouldn't need electron microscopes, would we? And the Large Hadron Collider is completely overkill with that line of reasoning. As a starting point for discovery it certainly was sufficient, but not for further scientific knowledge.

MIG29pilot wrote:As for that pic, it doesn't matter what dotty sees, he's not in the middle. If he was loking from a better viewpoint he would see that. That shape has a definite, calculable point which is the center.


Yes, but the point is that you don't know that yours is at the center by making observations which are a "daily experience". Neither does he. So the universe being three dimensional does not prove that we are at the center, only that it is possible.

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:38 pm
by KL-666
Lydiot wrote:His own account is obviously tainted by subjectivity and isn't particularly interesting to me. As for "hushing up": This particular field requires huge amounts of resources to do practical research. Telescope time for example isn't "cheap". So should the scientific community accommodate any fringe view scientist's requests? There'd be such a dilution of resources we'd get nothing done. Of course he and disbelievers in the Big Bang will call it "hushing up".


I really do not care how he feels about the hushing up. What does denying research time for opposing theories mean for the quality of science as a whole? It degrades to a mono culture of believers that are free to make everything fit as they like. You are quick to dismiss an opposing theory, but you are willing to take any fantasy of the proponents of the expanding universe for granted (none whatsoever proof for dark matter and dark energy). That is what one sided research does to the mind of ordinary people.

Kind regards, Vincent

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:42 pm
by MIG29pilot
Ha-hem if that dot launched satellites and made mathematical equations that calculated his position in that diagram that would be daily experience.

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:44 pm
by Lydiot
MIG29pilot wrote:I can't help but think that these damnable evolutionists and Big Bangers are deliberately trying to sabotage truth and reason and logic for the sake of their Big Bang


:?

MIG29pilot wrote:AND FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP ACTING LIKE CHILDREN AND ACT LIKE MEN!


Why are you yelling?

MIG29pilot wrote:Read the arguments and consider them all; make no assumptions, believe no theories; prove everything


What is your suggested method for proving something?

MIG29pilot wrote:Ha-hem if that dot launched satellites and made mathematical equations that calculated his position in that diagram that would be daily experience.


Ok, but given that view, just what "daily experience" exists that proves that proposed position - specifically?

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 6:50 pm
by Lydiot
KL-666 wrote:What does denying research time for opposing theories mean for the quality of science as a whole? It degrades to a mono culture of believers that are free to make everything fit as they like.


Looking at science as a whole the above is wildly inaccurate. Again, based on everything we've achieved so far using science it seems science is working remarkably well.

KL-666 wrote: You are quick to dismiss an opposing theory, but you are willing to take any fantasy of the proponents of the expanding universe for granted (none whatsoever proof for dark matter and dark energy). That is what one sided research does to the mind of ordinary people.

Kind regards, Vincent


But the research is NOT one-sided. When you brought this guy up you showed that. Just because the scientific community wasn't swayed by his views doesn't mean they weren't evaluated and then dismissed.

I mean, we just end up in the same place again: What do you consider to be a good alternative to the scientific method and its community (using peer review)?

Here's a serious question: If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer believe him to be correct?

Re: Creation or Evoloution? Big Bang or Big Belief -- which is it?

Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 7:04 pm
by KL-666
Lydiot wrote:Here's a serious question: If I post peer review of his hypothesis and it shows how it is refuted - will you accept it and no longer believe him to be correct?


Why do you keep saying that i believe him to be correct after all i said? I do not care about him being correct or not, and the least about his broader hypothesis. I care about watching the skies with an open mind, and if you see an anomaly with your current theory, go and investigate it and do not turn a blind eye. People like him are prepared to investigate. The current leftovers in astronomy turn a blind eye.

Kind regards, Vincent