Genesis Remix - Day One | evolutionexplained's Xanga Site

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."	-Charles Darwin, 'On the Origin of Species'

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

-Charles Darwin, 'On the Origin of Species'

About this Entry
Posted by: evolutionexplained Original: 7/25/2007 6:42 PM Comments: 38 eProps: 11 Read Comments Post a Comment Back to Your Xanga Site

Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps from: soccerdadforlife The_Astrocreep easymac452 Spoonwood alk073 1 eProp from: Derek_Timothy

Read or Post Comments

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Genesis Remix - Day One

In the beginning - specifically on October 23, 4004 BC, at noon - out of quantum foam fluctuation God created the Big Bang, followed by cosmological inflation and an expanding universe. And darkness was upon the face of the deep, so He created Quarks and therefrom He created hydrogen atoms to fuse and become helium atoms an din the process to release energy in the form of light. And the light maker He called the sun, and now He could see what He was doing, so he created Earth. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Posted 7/25/2007 6:42 PM - 38 comments

recommend
recs0
give stars
votes1
email
sent0

Give eProps or Post a Comment

38 Comments

browse comments: next › | last »

Good try, but wrong order and wrong starting stuff.

In darkness (evening), God created water, then spun it from its surface (perhaps so it wouldn't just condense into a black hole), and created light (morning), then a lantern which compartmentalized light (light separated from darkness) -- the first day

Then God separated the water of the deep in two, creating the earth and heavens, etc. on the second day

The sun isn't created until the fourth day from the water stuff that was separated into the heavens.

Posted 7/25/2007 8:03 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

Wow. Don't you have a degree in physics, soccerdadforlife?

Posted 7/26/2007 4:41 PM by The_Astrocreep

- reply

You're amazing.

And you know it.

You know how to get a laugh out of me any day.

Posted 7/26/2007 4:59 PM by easymac452 - reply

Hmmm.... *double-checks Wikipedia...double-checks an astronomy book* Yep, I thought that the sun was made of helium and hydrogen, and not water. Always good to make sure, though.

Posted 7/27/2007 1:10 PM by Derek_Timothy - reply

The original Big Ball of Water produces a tremendous gravitational force. This would collapse into a singularity except that the breath of God spins it and the centrifugal force from the spinning allows layering of particles. At various layers various elements form. A current develops from the spin which causes mixing of the elements. The outer, lighter layers, which are composed of hydrogen & helium are used on the FOURTH DAY to make sun, stars, etc.

Astromoron (aka the movie start Salacious Crumb), I would fart in your general direction, but you're not worth a fart. The rest of the comments aren't worth responding to. None of y'all know anything about physics or you would have given an intelligent response to my cosmology.

DarApe, maybe you will take a whack at it.

Here's some food for thought:

Arno & Penzias observed CMBR -- 2.7 degrees

Gamow's initial CMBR prediction -- 5 degrees

Gamow's revised CMBR prediction -- 61 degrees

Eddington's CMBR prediction (non Big Bang) - 3 degrees

CMBR doesn't support the Big Belch, er, Big Bang.

You might try reading Dismantling the Big Bang by Alex Williams and John Hartnett (my current book) or The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang by Tom van Flandern.

Posted 7/27/2007 7:51 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

[Arno & Penzias observed CMBR -- 2.7 degrees]
Correct, discovered in 1964.
[Gamow's initial CMBR prediction -- 5 degrees]
Correct... in 1948 he made this prediction. Not too far off for working it all out on paper using the data of his time.
[Gamow's revised CMBR prediction -- 61 degrees]
I'm curious as to where you got this bit of information, for after Gamow finished his famous Alpher-Bethe-Gamow paper on nucleosynthesis of Hydrogen and Helium after the initial phases of the Big Bang, he went on to work on DNA.
[Eddington's CMBR prediction (non Big Bang) - 3 degrees]
I'm also curious where you acquired this information as well, since Eddington was a strong supporter of the theory of relativity, and created the expanding balloon analogy for the redshift we see due to the Big Bang.

You might try reading "Big Bang" by Simon Singh (which I am just finishing up), a book merely on the history of the study of the subject.

Posted 7/27/2007 10:55 PM by evolutionexplained - reply

Ouch, soccerdadforlife, I'm really started to question your "expertise." Looks like you need to freshen up on your physics history.

Posted 7/27/2007 11:56 PM by The_Astrocreep

- reply

ee: "I'm curious as to where you got this bit of information"

Van Flandern, Tom. "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang", Apeiron, 9(2):72-90.

ee: "I'm also curious where you acquired this information as well, since Eddington "

Eddington, Arthur S. The Internal Constitution of Stars (NY: Dover 1959), p. 371

I hear Crumb's annoying (and ignorant) giggle.

Posted 7/28/2007 9:25 AM by soccerdadforlife - reply

Hmmm, the Van Flandern book appears to be no longer available. All I can find is the abstract, which has none of these facts.

Also remember that the red shift data is just one piece of evidence for the big bang.

Posted 7/28/2007 9:19 PM by evolutionexplained - reply

Van Flandern's paper: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

Posted 7/28/2007 11:33 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

"Good try, but wrong order and wrong starting stuff."

It's called a "remix."

[The original Big Ball of Water produces a tremendous gravitational force.]

How you call whatever mumbo-jumbo you've made up in your mind "water" I simply don't have a clue. Rather clearly, water doesn't work as all that dense. For Newton's equation for gravity, the ones we usually use: the inverse square law, distance and mass determine how much gravitational force exists. D=M/V, which implies DV=M. In other words density=mass over volume. Consequently, for equivalent volumes, something less dense will have less mass and therefore less gravitaitonal attraction, in general, than something more dense. Again, there exist many more structures in nature more dense than water, and so for equivalent volumes of substances, water simply doesn't have much mass and, by extension, gravitaitonal attraction (for equivalent distances... which I think assuming the normal Euclidean metric).

Posted 8/2/2007 10:15 AM by Spoonwood - reply

Hi Spoon, glad to see you're back.

SD: [The original Big Ball of Water produces a tremendous gravitational force.]

Spoon: "How you call whatever mumbo-jumbo you've made up in your mind "water" I simply don't have a clue. Rather clearly, water doesn't work as all that dense. For Newton's equation for gravity, the ones we usually use: the inverse square law, distance and mass determine how much gravitational force exists. D=M/V, which implies DV=M. In other words density=mass over volume. Consequently, for equivalent volumes, something less dense will have less mass and therefore less gravitaitonal attraction, in general, than something more dense. Again, there exist many more structures in nature more dense than water, and so for equivalent volumes of substances, water simply doesn't have much mass and, by extension, gravitaitonal attraction (for equivalent distances... which I think assuming the normal Euclidean metric)."

The Deep = Water (From Genesis 1:1 and 2 Peter 3:5)

If all the mass in the universe was originally water, then that would be huge with a massive gravitational attraction. Humphries has calculated the BBoW to be about 1 LY in diameter. Without an input of energy to sustain the shape, it would quickly turn into a black hole. Take my word on it or find a physicist to ask about this. I doubt there'd be disagreement among physicists that the force due to gravity would be intense or that a black hole would be the end result without an input of energy.

Posted 8/2/2007 8:28 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

[The Deep = Water]

"The deep" does not come close to H20. Since, in the language of science, water equals H20 (where equals can mean approximately equals), you simply have used some other form of speaking than normal science. "The deep" rather clearly doesn't have a precise definition or even some approximately precise definition. It comes as extremely non-descript and vague. Consequently, your terminology doesn't lend itself to an exact analysis either. Furthermore your re-definition of water leads to no more general theory of water, nor suggest it. Therefore, your re-definition of water as "the deep" simply has no rational basis for usage.

[If all the mass in the universe was originally water, then that would be huge with a massive gravitational attraction.]

No, because if ALL the mass in the universe just consited of water we simply couldn't compare how strongly water attracts things in comparison to something else.

[Humphries has calculated the BBoW to be about 1 LY in diameter.]

Where again? On what foundation? What does he assume in his calculations? How does he know or think such existed? Look, I can "calculate" e as excatly 3. I could also "calculate" pi as exactly 3. That doesn't make it correct, becuase I have false assumptions in my "calculuations" to begin with. Second, the equations I used basically come as knowable to high school physics students, as well as any competnt physicist. I calculated your hypothesis about water as basically flawed in a few short lines written in a few short seconds. Water simply doesn't exist as the most dense substance in the universe, and no physicist claims such. "Intense" doesn't work as a precise physical term, since we don't have a threshold for "intense." Here's some simple physics problems, since you rather clearly have superior knowledge of physics than me.

Write Newton's second law as a differntial equation.

Define velocity in terms of a derivative.

Is force, such as in F=MA, a vector or a scalar?

There exist many physical problems which we can at least model using waves, such as electromagnetic waves of all sorts, e.g. radio waves, gamma rays, infrared rays, etc. Some of these waves come out "rather bumpy" and thus initially appear inscrutable to a mathematical analysis. What sort of commonly used transform allows us to decompose any of these "rather bumpy" waves into simpler ones and recompose simpler ones into more complex ones? Possible hint: your computer almost certainly has implementations of it somewhere. Further question, which mathematical functions does this transform rely on?

The last one might seem harder, but we need it... or something similar... for wave analysis of any sort. Although it may sound pretentious to say so, don't pretend to have a clue about the study called physics, esepcially on a mathematical level, unless you can answer all of these rather basic questions (that goes for everyone here... not just soccerdadforlife).

Posted 8/3/2007 12:57 AM by Spoonwood - reply

NIce metaphor! I am fairly certain that nothing's mentioned in the bible unless someone rewrote the story of 7-day creation. It's time for them to accept that our solar system is about 4.55 billion years old and the universe at about 17.6 billion years old. Magic doesn't exist. :)

Posted 8/3/2007 5:50 AM by alk073 - reply

sw: "you simply have used some other form of speaking than normal science"

I've posted this before on my site. Humphries has published this in a peer-reviewed journal. Why bring up science? We aren't talking about science in teleology anyway.

sw: "No, because if ALL the mass in the universe just consited of water we simply couldn't compare how strongly water attracts things in comparison to something else."

I have no idea what you mean by this. Relative attraction isn't part of physics. What you have to do is look at gravitational force at various distances from the center of the deep, say earth-radius, sun-radius, and solar-system-radius. You will see that the gravitational force quickly becomes immense.

sw: "The last one might seem harder, but we need it... or something similar... for wave analysis of any sort."

I don't think you understand the magnitude of this problem. With a mass as large as the deep, and with the power of God moving it, any wave analysis is beyond our comprehension. Even normal physics has problems with mere ocean currents--how much worse with a mass as big as all the matter in the universe. Fourier analysis isn't going to be much help.

sw: "What sort of commonly used transform allows us to decompose any of these "rather bumpy" waves into simpler ones and recompose simpler ones into more complex ones?"

Is this supposed to be a test? If so, I will bill you at my standard physics rate of $175/hour, with payment expected up front. Or, if you want to spare the expense, you could just look in the public records at the University of Missouri at Kansas City for my MS physics, granted in 1983.

By the way, science is limited to the study of mechanisms which may be tested by experimentation (no analogic testing is acceptable as a substitute). Adler noted that science is methodologically flawed when it attempts to study the past. (Conditions of Philosophy, 1965, p. 107). Gee also said essentially that historical science is an oxymoron. (Nature, editorial, 2000, pp. 5-8)

I've been posting some about philosophy of science on my site if you care to discuss it.

Posted 8/3/2007 1:19 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

[What you have to do is look at gravitational force at various distances from the center of the deep, say earth-radius, sun-radius, and solar-system-radius. You will see that the gravitational force quickly becomes immense.]

No, the Earth has more water.. or "the deep"... than the Sun. The Sun has more gravitational force.

[With a mass as large as the deep]

By your equation this becomes "with a mass as large as water." Umm... not all water has the same mase, and not all water works as more massive than say Mars or Jupiter.

[Fourier analysis isn't going to be much help.]

I didn't say it would. I posed that as a problem to see if you actually understood any physics currently used.

[Is this supposed to be a test?]

Yes.

[If so, I will bill you at my standard physics rate of $175/hour, with payment expected up front. Or, if you want to spare the expense, you could just look in the public records at the University of Missouri at Kansas City for my MS physics, granted in 1983.]

That doesn't indicate that you can solve these problems in 2007.

[By the way, science is limited to the study of mechanisms which may be tested by experimentation (no analogic testing is acceptable as a substitute).]

Plenty of philosophers of science disagree wholeheartedly.

[Adler noted that science is methodologically flawed when it attempts to study the past.]

Then every experiment works out as "methodogically flawed", since every experiment involves observations of events that happened in the past (since nerve impulses, light, sound, etc. all travel at finite speeds) or inference about the past event we know as our experiment.

[Gee also said essentially that historical science is an oxymoron.]

"Historical" meaning at a point in time previous to the one right now, again implies that science qualifies as an "oxymoron." You've basically stated you logically (would) reject the whole notion of science together by citing two so-believed "experts" on this sort of philosophical issue. This means that your "M.S.", if you have one (I don't know... I really don't trust you), doesn't apply in 2007, since you no longer believe in any sort of science whatsoever as methodogically correct, or at least you would no longer believe in such if you understood the logical consequences of what you say. That's fine when taken in isolation. But, it does imply that you can't speak about science and speak consistently with respect to your beliefs about the methodological validity of science.

[I've been posting some about philosophy of science on my site if you care to discuss it.]

With you? Why? You certianly don't, or at least logically wouldn't choose to give science value as a means of knowing.

Posted 8/3/2007 7:05 PM by Spoonwood - reply

Ok, let's start over.

The estimated mass of the observable universe--3.0 x 10^55 g from:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=342

Let's assume this is initially water.

3.0 x 10^55 g of water -- this is all together and we shall call this "the deep"

There is a tremendous internal gravitational force on the deep--so much so that it requires tremendous energy input to prevent a black hole from forming. Due to this tremendous gravitational force, there is a lot of potential energy. At various layers, there will be lots of energy--mostly vibrational. Water's chemical bonds break and fusion occurs and elements form--up to the heaviest elements. Even radioactive isotopes form because of the great amount of energy. There are natural nuclear reactors that form and they bombard everything. This results in what we would call an appearance of age, though actually it was just the result of neutrino bombardment by natural nuclear reactors.

God moves the deep--starts it spinning. As a consequence of the spin, coriolis forces form. Currents flow. Stuff begins to mix somewhat, though the viscosity is very high because the deep has already become an ultra-saturated solution.

God says, "Let there be light", and radiation is emitted. God takes some of the radiation-emitting deep and forms a shuttered lantern.

On the second day, God separates the deep into two parts. This converts a lot of potential energy into kinetic energy. God speaks over the lower deep and the surface of the ultra-saturated solution cools and the salts precipitate out into land masses.

sw: "That doesn't indicate that you can solve these problems in 2007."

But I can still bill for them. I really don't care to perform for you.

Now to Philosophy of Science -- you asked some interesting questions

sw: "Plenty of philosophers of science disagree wholeheartedly."

And I think that most experimental scientists would agree with me. So, do you believe philosophers who just talk about science or experimental scientists who actually do it? I think that even theoretical physicists would generally agree with my statement. They realize that experiments are needed to test mechanisms. Without knowing which mechanism you are interacting with, you have no way to test theories.

sw: "Then every experiment works out as "methodogically flawed", since every experiment involves observations of events that happened in the past (since nerve impulses, light, sound, etc. all travel at finite speeds) or inference about the past event we know as our experiment."

I think that most experimental scientists would laugh at your characterization. The experiment is under the control of the scientist and under the contemporaneous observation of the scientist. Your relativistic argument does not persuade--a few microseconds or nanoseconds delay is nothing for most of science. Even for high-energy physics, clocks have sufficient precision to give repeatable results. You should understand that repeatability gives a warrant that we have adequately defined the mechanism we are studying. "Historical science" must always deal with underdetermined mechanisms--not only with underdetermined theories. Experimental science always has the underdetermined theories to deal with, but at least it precisely determines its mechanisms with warrant given by its repeatable results.

sw: ""Historical" meaning at a point in time previous to the one right now, again implies that science qualifies as an "oxymoron." "

No, "historical science" as Gee used it means that somebody is attempting to study the effects (detritus) of the past where the mechanism that produced the effects is not within the observation or control of the investigators. Science can really only test mechanisms in the present. "Historical science" can never test the mechanisms that produced the results it studies, at least not without a time machine. "Historical scientists" have no experimental control and no contemporaneous observations of the events in action that produced their effects.

What I have done is to develop a new standard of demarcation--based on the fact that the experimentalists have warrant to believe that they have adequately defined the mechanism under study. The warrant comes from the repeatable effects.

I am a scientific realist for some things, though I prefer Baconian induction where possible. I don't know if the Hypothetico-Inductive method is used any more. Abduction is really just Baconian induction, from what I read of it.

Posted 8/3/2007 7:54 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

Oops. God separated out the land on the third day.

Posted 8/3/2007 7:57 PM by soccerdadforlife - reply

[The estimated mass of the observable universe--3.0 x 10^55 g ]

Which ignores black holes and dark matter. Is that an estimated mass... or is the mass estimated as coming on that order?

[Let's assume this is initially water.
3.0 x 10^55 g of water -- this is all together and we shall call this "the deep"]

How in the world does atomic theory work out this way? How does quantum mechanics, or some better theory of matter permit this? Assuming this as regular water, this means that we initially have hydrgoen, and oxygen all over the place. Compare this with the regular theory where we start with just hydrogen. Since everything gets made by hydrogen, and the Schrodinger wave-equation describes how hydrogen works, we basically have a physically mathematical theory which tells us how matter works at the simplest level. From this one computes electron levels for all other atoms and predicts what atoms look like... and thus physicists can and have syntheticaly made new atoms. But, if you start with water you don't have this, or you need to work it out. You start with hydrogen and oxygen. Consequently, for a mathematically physical description at the simplest level we need an equation that describes the behavior of hydrogen-like and oxygen-like atoms (you thought the Schrodinger wave-equation was hard?). But, we didn't really start with just hydrogen and oxygen. We start with them bonded together. Consequently, we need a subatomic equation for H2O, something like the Schrodinger wave-equation, to describe the behavior of this inital water. O16 comes as the most common isotope of oxygen which has atomic number of 8.

This means we have 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons in just one oxygen atom. So we need a subatomic (you develop a whole new theory of matter this way, so calling it "quantum mechanics" doesn't seem apt) equation as our starting point for a system involving 9 protons, 8 neutrons, and 9 electrons. The Schrodinger wave-equation will work for a hydrogen-like atom, as I understand it, since electrons and protons act in a pair-like way in a pure hydrogen atom. But, we have nothing similar for neutrons. In a standard model, neutrons don't matter initially, since they get formed from hydrogen which basically forms everything (and a few helium atoms), at least as I understand it. But, we've started with water. Consequently, we need an equation, again for 9 protons, 8 neutrons, and 9 electrons, along with something added on describing the chemical bonding between the two hydrogens and the oxygen. Otherwise, I simply don't see how mathematical physics has a foundation of any sort for the real-world. Needless to say such an equation involves massive complexities of all sorts. Can anyone write such a equation? Even if a computer could write it, could anyone ever read it? Does sufficient mathematical technique exist for such. O.K... now since I've describe how utterly absurd your hypothesis appears to me... and I'd guess many students who have taken even second-semester physics with calculus, I'll try to assume it.

[There is a tremendous internal gravitational force on the deep]

What do you mean by "internal gravitational force"? Gravitational force doesn't basically work below the subatomic scale, so I guess you can't mean that. Looking about I find this "Internal force: Forces which hold an object together when external forces or other loads are applied. Internal forces are sometimes called resisting forces since they resist the effects of external forces." http://www.arch.virginia.edu/~km6e/references/glossary/struc-glossary.html
Since we've assumed the universe as initally ALL water, there simply exist no forces from anything else but the water involved. So, I guess you can't mean external force as physicists usually use it. So, what in the world do you mean?

Morever... what's the rest of space look like? Usually, we assume something like a vaccuum of space. So, you've talked about simply massive amounts of pure water existing inside a vaccuum. Does that make any sense at all?

[Due to this tremendous gravitational force, there is a lot of potential energy.]

Potential energy with respect to gravitation equals mgh, or mass times the acceleration of gravity times the vertical distance of the reference location. What's the reference location here? Again, we've assumed that we have a universe of ALL water. So, where does this exist reference location? You could also put in terms of Newtonian gravitation, I suppose, but still we have a distance with another object. What's the other object?

[Water's chemical bonds break and fusion occurs and elements form--up to the heaviest elements.]

Why in the world do the bonds break? How much energy gets released when these bonds break? Why not just start with hydrogen, which works as simpler, and form oxygen out of it?

[There are natural nuclear reactors that form and they bombard everything.]

Perhaps once we have hydrogen galore. But, we started with pure water. So, we can't have natural nuclear reactors to break up the water. What causes the break-up of the water?

[God moves the deep--starts it spinning.]

What is this God? We started with water as our universe, so how does this "God" get formed from water? How do we justify the existence of this "God" from pure physical or mathematical principles? How does "God" "move the deep"? Seriously, you can't just start with pure water in your model, you need pure water and your magician which you blaspheme as "God".

[Stuff begins to mix somewhat, though the viscosity is very high because the deep has already become an ultra-saturated solution.]

What "stuff"? How much? Saturated with WHAT? Saturated how? Again, we have pure water, and that's it at our supposed beginning. You claimed water's chemical bonds break (by your magician which you blaspheme as "God"), and we have natural nuclear reactors. But, you didn't claim that there existed any substance, so far as I could see, which could chemically get saturated in a solution of water.

[God says, "Let there be light", and radiation is emitted.]

How does your magician, which you blaspheme as "God", say this and "poof" it happens?

[God takes some of the radiation-emitting deep and forms a shuttered lantern.]

What is this "shuttered lantern" that your magician, which you rather consistently blaspheme as "God", produces? How did this happen?

[God speaks over the lower deep and the surface of the ultra-saturated solution cools and the salts precipitate out into land masses.]

What? It sounds like you're talking about a planet here. But, which planet? Astronomers know there exist many non-terrestrial planets. So, which planet? How did we just jump past star formation so quickly?

[But I can still bill for them.]

You can say you bill for them over the internet. Honestly, I don't lend much credence to what you say.

[And I think that most experimental scientists would agree with me.]

Sure, and they would agree with your horrendously complicated "water model." Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that the finding the number of electrons in an atom gets ridiculously more complicated with your "water" model, where all the inital particles come as so massively mathematically complex, since the inital equation of behavior has to describe the inital particle. Starting with hydrogen, one can basically start with the Schrodinger equation as describing inital particles of the universe. Do you honestly believe that your model works as preferable, with such a massively complex equation? Do you think you model works as preferable when you had to (not choose to... had to) invoke your magician so many times? I give you an internet quarter. Buy a clue. Experimental scientists (one can include mathematics as an experimental science as Heaviside did) simply don't think your model even slightly preferable, except in exceeding rare instances.

[So, do you believe philosophers who just talk about science or experimental scientists who actually do it?]

False dichotomy. Steve Weinberg does both. Richard Feynman did both (he just refused to call his philosohpical thoughts "philosophy" since he reserved the term "philosophy" for the academic subject). I certainly don't believe your "water model".

[I think that most experimental scientists would laugh at your characterization.]

Most experimental scientists would laugh at your characterization of science as dealing with the present only.

[The experiment is under the control of the scientist and under the contemporaneous observation of the scientist.]

Not completely, because there always exists a finite level of precision in all measuring apparti.

[Your relativistic argument does not persuade--a few microseconds or nanoseconds delay is nothing for most of science.]

What "science"? Your "water model", which the physics community doesn't accept in the slightest?

[Even for high-energy physics, clocks have sufficient precision to give repeatable results. You should understand that repeatability gives a warrant that we have adequately defined the mechanism we are studying.]

If we don't have the ability to compare past events with future events, we don't have repeatability.

["Historical science" must always deal with underdetermined mechanisms--not only with underdetermined theories.]

Define "historical science". Tell me why I preferably would rationall accept it. Why would I preferablly use a model of the nature of science as falling into two different categories "experimental science" and "historical science" instead of just "science"? Also, show me what benefits will accrue to the scientific community from accepting this categorization.

[Experimental science always has the underdetermined theories to deal with, but at least it precisely determines its mechanisms with warrant given by its repeatable results.]

No. Measurement always comes out finite and approximates withing a certain interval, while true values may have many, many more decimal places. As Russell basically said even so-called "exact" sciences (physics, physical chemsitry) come as approximate.

[No, "historical science" as Gee used it means that somebody is attempting to study the effects (detritus) of the past where the mechanism that produced the effects is not within the observation or control of the investigators.]

So, let's consider Newton's classic experiment using two prisms to decompose and recompose light. Light produces the effects. Does Newton control the mechanisms of light that enables it to split into colors and then recompose into white light when prisms get used in particular ways? No. Newton controlled (or someone doing a similar experiment) where he puts the prism with respect to light shining, and that's it. The prism alone doesn't produce the effects. The nature of light, when it interacts with the prism, produces the effects. So, the nature of light causes the effects. Does Newton control the nature of light when it acts through a prism? No. Did Newton observe the particlewaves of light literally? No, because they all come as subatomic. He observed the effects of many waveparticles of light indirectly through nerve signals in his brain. Consequently, Newton's experiment qualifies as "historical science". Throw out Newton's physical experiments on light since they qualify as "historical science". Here's a internet $100 bill, buy a clue: Newton's experiment qualifies as real science... if it doesn't quintessentially exemplify scientific experimentation.

More interestingly consider Gallielo's post-experiment to test Copernicus's hypothesis that the Earth revolved about the Sun. I say post-experiment since he didn't even realize he could interpret his experience as a scientific experiment until later, so far as we know. Look at Jupiter at several distinct times and see if the moons move. This tests the hypothesis of the Earth moving about the Sun or vice versa. Did Gallielo control the Earth? No. Did he control the Sun? No. Did he observe either? No. Consequently, the Earth moving about the Sun, via Gallielo's methods qualifies as "historical science", and basically he shouldn't have accepted it.

Similarly, no one has the ability to control the Earth in its orbit. No one has literally observed the Earth in its orbit. So, by your definition, the Earth revolving about the Sun qualify as "historical science," and thus doesn't qualify as real science. It also works out that Jupiter revolving about the Sun, Neptune revolving about the Sun, and all solar and extrasolar planets revolving about the Sun qualify as "historical science" since no one has controlled or observed these planets completely in such a process. More interestingly, the theory that graviation holds for all bodies above the subatomic level hasn't gotten controlled for all bodies, nor has gotten observed for all bodies in our universe. So, Newton's theory of universal gravitation qualifies as "historical science", and we would logically do with it the same as what you propose to do with evolution. Additionally, gravity doesn't hold scientifically at all times.

[Historical science" can never test the mechanisms that produced the results it studies, at least not without a time machine. "Historical scientists" have no experimental control and no contemporaneous observations of the events in action that produced their effects.]

Let rephrase that: "gravitational physicists can never test the mechanisms that produce the results of gravitation. Gravitational physicists have no experimental control and no contemporaneous observations of the Earth revolving about the Sun in the 14th century."

[What I have done is to develop a new standard of demarcation--based on the fact that the experimentalists have warrant to believe that they have adequately defined the mechanism under study.]

Really? Who has accepted such? What evidence do you have that scientists at large will accept such? Did you apply it to a single engineering problem or show that it has real-world applications other than the personal rejection of any theoretical construct you don't like?

Here's my Xanga credit card. Your "water" "hypothesis" has no real predictive power, no possible real-world applications other than the psychological rejection of whatever theoretical construct you don't like (such as evolution... which has engineering applications in genetic algorithms), comes as far too massively complex for mathematical physics of even a fuzzy or fractional sort, it involves a magician, it involves blasphemy by attributing characteristics to "God" which "God" simply doesn't have... ahem... the standard model of physics works as far preferable even for string theorists... ahem... your notion of "historical science" simply throws out the Earth revolving about the Sun, universal gravitation, really all of quantum mechanics since we don't control or observe quantum entities, we massively make inferences about them. In other words you need to sit down and RETHINK everything you BELIEVE you know about "science". Here's my other Xanga credit card; buy a clue... no one here has gotten fooled by your mumbo-jumbo.

Posted 8/4/2007 12:06 AM by Spoonwood - reply

Here's another Xanga quarter: No one got fooled by your statement here: "If so, I will bill you at my standard physics rate of $175/hour, with payment expected up front. Or, if you want to spare the expense, you could just look in the public records at the University of Missouri at Kansas City for my MS physics, granted in 1983." Doing this for 40 hours a week you would make around $350,000. The OOH says this:
"Median annual earnings of physicists were $87,450 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $66,590 and $109,420. The lowest 10 percent earned less than $49,450, and the highest 10 percent earned more than $132,780.

Median annual earnings of astronomers were $97,320 in May 2004. The middle 50 percent earned between $66,190 and $120,350, the lowest 10 percent less than $43,410, and the highest 10 percent more than $137,860.

According to a 2005 National Association of Colleges and Employers survey, the average annual starting salary offer to physics doctoral degree candidates was $56,070.

The American Institute of Physics reported a median annual salary of $104,000 in 2004 for its full-time members with Ph.D.’s (excluding those in postdoctoral positions); the median was $94,000 for those with master’s degrees and $72,000 for bachelor’s degree holders. Those working in temporary postdoctoral positions earned significantly less.

The average annual salary for physicists employed by the Federal Government was $104,917 in 2005; for astronomy and space scientists, it was $110,195." http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos052.htm

So, rather clearly you would have to qualify as a "top tier" physicist economically, if you really did that level of work. You admit you don't have a doctorate. Also, your entries and comments on Xanga... even ignoring the ridiculous problems in their notions... come as way too long for someone who actually works at that level economically.

Posted 8/4/2007 12:17 AM by Spoonwood - reply

sw: "So, rather clearly you would have to qualify as a "top tier" physicist economically, if you really did that level of work."

NS. I charge what I want. Also, for consulting work, $175/hour is fairly common for professionals. Some computer programmers get billed at that rate. Physicists are more commonly used in court as expert witnesses than computer programmers and their consultancy is paid based on need and availability.

Posted 8/4/2007 7:13 AM by soccerdadforlife - reply

sw: "Which ignores black holes and dark matter"

From the Cornell site: "Now, the size of the observable universe is about 14 billion light years, and using the above value of density gives you a mass (dark and luminous matter) of about 3 x 1055 g, which is roughly 25 billion galaxies the size of the Milky Way."

SD: I have no idea what you're getting at when you think that QM no longer applies. QM doesn't depend on cosmogony.

sw: "what's the rest of space look like?"

The deep occupies all of space in the beginning. It's only 1 LY in diameter.

sw: "[There is a tremendous internal gravitational force on the deep]
... What do you mean by "internal gravitational force"?"

Perhaps self-gravitational force is clearer. Each molecule of water in the deep will exercise a gravitational force on every other molecule of water.

sw: "Potential energy with respect to gravitation equals mgh"

Actually, you can't use g (32 m/sec/sec). You have to calculate this using (m1 x m2 x G/r/r). Humphries has already done this work. You might want to read his paper. It's based on a white-hole cosmogony.

sw: ", or mass times the acceleration of gravity times the vertical distance of the reference location. What's the reference location here? Again, we've assumed that we have a universe of ALL water. So, where does this exist reference location?"

I'd have thought that this was obvious--it's the center of the deep. You then calculate the gravitational force at one earth radius from the center, then 1 sun-radius, then one solar-system-radius, then 1-LY-radius, as previously described. You assume one molecule of water for one of the masses. The other mass will be the total water contained by the particular radius chosen. The force on each molecule will be huge. Again, black holes have much less mass (obviously) than the total mass of the universe. So, if a black hole will compress matter (as does also a neutron star), how much more would the deep (with the mass of the total universe) collapse matter.

This should make it easier for you to understand the elementary physics of Humphreys' model. There have been several responses to Humphreys' model which you should be able to get to from here:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

Posted 8/4/2007 7:42 AM by soccerdadforlife - reply

sw: "What is this God? We started with water as our universe, so how does this "God" get formed from water? How do we justify the existence of this "God" from pure physical or mathematical principles?"

God created the deep in the first place. God is pre-existent and uncreated--eternal. God simply is. These are our metaphysical axioms. You don't justify axioms. You may be able to set up a contradiction, but you don't kick them out a priori.

sw: "What is this "shuttered lantern" that your magician, which you rather consistently blaspheme as "God", produces? How did this happen?"

I don't know how this happened. Scripture doesn't say.

sw: "What? It sounds like you're talking about a planet here."

We're talking about earth's original land mass--typically called Pangea.

sw: "Do you think you model works as preferable when you had to (not choose to... had to) invoke your magician so many times?"

Yes. Your philosophy has things all muddled. History is the discipline to use when we are studying the past. History requires the intervention of God, since the historical documents state His actions. I don't choose God's actions ad hoc. I am required to defer to the historical documents. One should not use Occam in this situation.

sw: "Not completely, because there always exists a finite level of precision in all measuring apparti."

Of course, our knowledge is only partial. Still, it is true, pro tanto. Your relativistic attack is still weak. You might try reading Laudan for an answer to Feyerabend.

sw: "What "science"? Your "water model", which the physics community doesn't accept in the slightest?"

At this point we are discussing philosophy of science generally, so why are you mentioning my water model?

sw: "No. Measurement always comes out finite and approximates withing a certain interval, while true values may have many, many more decimal places. As Russell basically said even so-called "exact" sciences (physics, physical chemsitry) come as approximate."

More relativistic attacks--and still weak. No experimentalist would accept this as a reason to disbelieve his results.

sw: "So, let's consider Newton's classic experiment using two prisms to decompose and recompose light. Light produces the effects. Does Newton control the mechanisms of light that enables it to split into colors and then recompose into white light when prisms get used in particular ways? No. Newton controlled (or someone doing a similar experiment) where he puts the prism with respect to light shining, and that's it. The prism alone doesn't produce the effects."

Newton controlled the experiment. Of course the laws of optics preexisted his experiment, but that wasn't what I was talking about. The mechanism includes the laws of optics, the prism, and the light, arranged by Newton in a precise way. Newton was in control of the mechanism. His mechanism was able to invoke the laws of optics, but that's outside of our discussion.

sw: "More interestingly consider Gallielo's post-experiment to test Copernicus's hypothesis that the Earth revolved about the Sun. I say post-experiment since he didn't even realize he could interpret his experience as a scientific experiment until later, so far as we know. Look at Jupiter at several distinct times and see if the moons move. This tests the hypothesis of the Earth moving about the Sun or vice versa. Did Gallielo control the Earth? No. Did he control the Sun? No. Did he observe either? No. Consequently, the Earth moving about the Sun, via Gallielo's methods qualifies as "historical science", and basically he shouldn't have accepted it."

You're going far afield of the topic, which is determination of an experimental mechanism. You've moved into theory selection. An interesting question if you like thrashing in quicksand. The philosophers love it.

sw: "Really? Who has accepted such?"

You are being given an early opportunity to test my demarcation criterion. It's part of a paper I plan to submit for publication.

Posted 8/4/2007 8:12 AM by soccerdadforlife - reply

When I said, "arranged by Newton in a precise way" I did not mean to say that Newton arranged the laws of optics--only that he adjusted the distance between the light, prism, and screen as he needed.

Posted 8/4/2007 8:18 AM by soccerdadforlife - reply

[I have no idea what you're getting at when you think that QM no longer applies. QM doesn't depend on cosmogony.]

QM at least allows us to talk about the assumed "inital state" of the universe since we have just massive amounts of hydrogen. We can talk about the inital particlewaves in a mathematical way. You can't do this with water, since QM doesn't have such an exact equation for it.

[Each molecule of water in the deep will exercise a gravitational force on every other molecule of water.]

So basically molecules exist before atoms. Throw out chemistry too, seriously. Second, you haven't talked about the distances between molecules, so we don't really know if your "gravitational collapse" would happen in your "model".

[Actually, you can't use g (32 m/sec/sec). You have to calculate this using (m1 x m2 x G/r/r).]

It's actually r^2 in the denominator, NOT r/r. Second, that r indicates distance. This still has to mean that there exists a distance to something else other than the water. You can talk about gravitation between water molecules, but your model doesn't specify a distribution of water molecules, so talking about gravitation here doesn't make sense in terms of the water moleculues themselves doesn't make sense.

[I'd have thought that this was obvious--it's the center of the deep.]

But there also exists gravitational force between all the water molecules individually.

[You assume one molecule of water for one of the masses.]

Which masses?

[So, if a black hole will compress matter (as does also a neutron star), how much more would the deep (with the mass of the total universe) collapse matter.]

Black holes work out as dense at their centers. You simply haven't demonstrated the center of your "water" dense as a black hole.

[God created the deep in the first place. God is pre-existent and uncreated--eternal. God simply is. These are our metaphysical axioms. You don't justify axioms. You may be able to set up a contradiction, but you don't kick them out a priori.]

Sure, but then you misspoke about your model of "the universe" (all that exists) at its "origin". At its origin there exists "God" and "the deep". You axiomatically assume that your magician, you blaspheme as "God", can and literally does work several cosmological miracles. You didn't state this as assumptions of your model and then test that model empirically or *compare* it with empirical observations . You injected into your other "model" of "blasphemous water" since it didn't work out so well.

[I don't know how this happened. Scripture doesn't say.]

So your "blasphemous water" "model" lacks predictive power.

[We're talking about earth's original land mass--typically called Pangea.]

How did the planet form? Why did you just mention "Earth" when we know of well over 20 planets that we've observe in just our galaxy?

[History requires the intervention of God]

Show this.

[since the historical documents state His actions.]

The "historical" documents state what people BELIEVE about such a "being" which, as you admit, they assume to exist.

[Your relativistic attack is still weak. ]

Your rhetoric here comes as far weaker, and your "blasphemous water" "model" still comes as ridiculous weaker to the standard model and ridiculous blasphemous also.

[At this point we are discussing philosophy of science generally, so why are you mentioning my water model?]

Rather clearly you don't have a clue how science works, even if you know historical results that science has derived.

[More relativistic attacks--and still weak. No experimentalist would accept this as a reason to disbelieve his results.]

More OVER-absolutic delusions on your part. One doesn't have to disbelieve completely or believe completely. One can believe for the present time. Or one can believe to some degree between complete belief and complete lack of belief. In fact, that indicates why people test their hypotheses to begin with. They don't know and know their ideas as beliefs, which may not work out so well.

[Newton controlled the experiment.]

The behavior of light comes as part of the event that happened. Newton didn't control it.

[Of course the laws of optics preexisted his experiment, but that wasn't what I was talking about.]

If you mean Newton's "laws" of optics that he formulated no. His "laws" worked as models of the phenomena. How light behaves may have precded his experiment, but this does not mean that we actually have the actual, real-world "laws" of light anywhere, since a more careful experiment in science can always disprove a previous hypothesis or well-tested theory.

[You're going far afield of the topic, which is determination of an experimental mechanism.]

No, the topic concerns the nature of science. We didn't even describe an experimental mechanism to determine.

[An interesting question if you like thrashing in quicksand.]

My raising of this question leads to acceptance of the standard model. You can this "quicksand" as much as you like, but as long it comes as the standard view in physics, it doesn't mean we've thrashed in quicksand.

[You are being given an early opportunity to test my demarcation criterion.]

You didn't state a "demarcation criterion". You simply won't submit anything, because you do know more than attempt to philosophically argue and use pure rhetoric such as "I consult as a physicist at $175 an hour" with people who understand how science works far better than you do. Your cockiness with respect to your model comes as misplaced, since you can't even identify how badly you don't get it to any degree, and neither does Humphries. You don't realize how what you dubbed "theory selection" plays a crucial part in the nature of even Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics came as a replacement to Aristotelian physics. That involves theory selection. To even prefer a particular experimental-inferential theory to a more purely observational-inferential theory involves theory selection. Accepting to any degree Newtonian physics over Aristotelian physics requires that we select an experimental theory over an observational one. That involves theory selection. Your "models", would basically have left science on an observational-inferential level to begin with, as we can't even prefer experimental theories in particular instance, or in general, to observational ones without theory selection. If theory selection worked out as so slippery, then not even Newtonian physics (other than what Newton wrote... which is just part of Newtonian physics) would exist today.

Posted 8/4/2007 3:52 PM by Spoonwood - reply

browse comments: next › | last »

Choose Identity

Xanga Network

Anonymous (Sign up for free!)