Enoch2021
-
Posts
3,396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Enoch2021
-
-
49 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
Because I believe it makes sense
I asked you WHY you believe Abject Speculations makes sense.
Repeating the same thing isn't an answer.
Quoteand I owe you no other explanation.
So you don't think you should SUPPORT your PARROTED Claims?
Do you understand the concept of SUPPORTING Claims?
Please Juxtapose (Compare and Contrast) Supported Claims vs Baseless Assertions (Fallacies)...?
QuoteSpeaking of parroting, you repeat things over and over and over......
You're somewhat confused. PARROTING is Mindlessly Repeating what "OTHERS" say.
I'm not Repeating what others say, I'm repeating what "I" say in response to the PARROTINGS of others. See the difference?
regards
-
35 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
Why do y9u do this, Enoch?
To EXPOSE Pretender Clowns.
QuoteAlways demanding other members post scientific research for theories of others?
Yes, I always demand others SUPPORT their Claims (PARROTED or Personal).
I know, OUTLANDISH!! How dare I
QuoteYou know no one is going to do it so why bother?
Yes, because they're PARROTING Fairytales... which ='s Pretender Clowns. See the point?
QuoteYour demands are tiresome and redundant
So are the Claims. Since the claims come first, that Ipso Facto relieves the burden on the respondee.
Quotesince they are being made to those reporting science news
Reporting Fairytale News.
Quotenot to the researchers who actually did the work.
The 'researchers' aren't Scientists.
QuoteIf you have greater knowledge than the people that come up with theories why waste your time on a Christian site?
1. Yes, I do.
2. The 'people' aren't coming up with "Scientific Theories", they're Masquerading then Postulating Fairytales under the term "Science".
3. Well the Parroting Pretender Clowns frequent Christian Sites to promote their Nonsensical Buffoonery Horse Pucky...Ergo, I come in and QUASH them.
regards
-
2 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
Again, if you believe it's an 'Abject Speculation' and you have research that proves that
Again. It's not that "I Believe" it's an Abject Speculation... it "IS" an Abject Speculation. And I just showed you quite Explicitly "WHY".
Quoteyou should contact Dr. Wright and tell her so.
Why?? You were the one who PARROTED it as Legitimate.
QuoteI believe her theory makes sense although I would not say I believe it 100%.
WHY do you believe her Abject Speculation makes sense...?
regards
-
42 minutes ago, BeyondET said:
A black hole cannot be viewed directly because light cannot escape it. It can, however, be identified by its effect on the matter around it. Matter swirling around a black hole heats up and emits radiation that can be detected. Around a stellar black hole, this matter is composed of gas. Around a supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy, the swirling disk is made of not only gas but also stars. An instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, called the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), was installed in February 1997. STIS is the space telescope’s main "black hole hunter." A spectrograph uses prisms or diffraction gratings to split the incoming light into its rainbow pattern. The position and strength of the line in a spectrum gives scientists valuable information. STIS spans ultraviolet, visible, and near-infrared wavelengths. The instrument can take a spectrum of many places at once across the center of a galaxy. Each spectrum tells scientists how fast the stars and gas are swirling at that location. With that information, the central mass that the stars are orbiting can be calculated. The faster the stars go, the more massive the central object must be.
STIS found, for instance, the signature of a supermassive black hole in the center of the galaxy M84. The spectra showed a rotation velocity of 400 km/s (248 miles per second), equivalent to 1.4 million km (.86 million miles) every hour. Earth orbits our Sun at 30 km/s (18.6 miles per second). If Earth moved as fast as 400 km/s (248 miles per second), our year would be only 27 days long.
Yes and Pocahontas was a MI6 Mermaid and the mastermind behind the sinking of the Lusitania.
Are you gonna CITE this appropriately or leave this as Plagiarized?
QuoteA black hole cannot be viewed directly because light cannot escape it.
Well the First Step of the Scientific Method is: "Observe A Phenomenon". So, this isn't "Science". It's a "Just-So" Story.
QuoteIt can, however, be identified by its effect on the matter around it.
Well, Scientifically Validate...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?QuoteMatter swirling around a black hole heats up
Begging The Question (Fallacy): 'black hole'. You can't use what your attempting to prove as a premise, until you've VALIDATED IT.
QuoteAn instrument aboard the Hubble Space Telescope, called the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph (STIS), was installed in February 1997.
Begging The Question Fallacy (x2). 'Hubble Telescope' and 'Space' (Vacuum of Space). Please Validate...?
Rinse/Repeat for the rest of this Treatise.
regards
-
11 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
I think the theory put forth in the article makes sense, although it's not proven yet; it is a theory.
So there's a "THEORY" put forth...but it's NOT PROVEN yet.
How can that be, WHEN...
"A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING."
https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138"A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with REPEATED TESTING."
https://futurism.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/"A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS."
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html??????????
Your statement should read: "I think the Abject Speculation put forth in the article makes sense, although it's not proven yet; it is an Abject Speculation."
QuoteIf you have a problem with the findings of the study you can contact Dr. Wright. From the article:
Why? I don't run around disproving Abject Speculations.
Quote"Now, in a study published this week in The Astrophysical Journal, scientists may have found the mechanism for how that happens. A team led by Shelley Wright, a physics professor at the University of California San Diego,found that the winds generated by these energetic stellar objects blow throughout a galaxy and affect the way stars form."
Alice in Wonderland has the same Scientific Veracity.
regards
-
5 hours ago, Justin Adams said:
Using logical textural analytical programs
Yes, I heard about these. I can't wait for the day I go up against one of'em, I'm gonna PUMMEL IT!!
Quoteit has been observed that the 'forbidden books' of our so-called bible were quoted extensively in the apostles' letters and epistles - and Yeshua did as well.
1. Our "So-Called" Bible, eh? Which is that, specifically...?
2. Forbidden Books?? Like which ones...? The Secret Knowledge, eh?
3. So God quoted from these Forbidden Books? Please, a 'For Instance' ...?
QuoteThus the 'modern roman offshoot' church is sadly deficient both in historical understanding and its so-called 'reformed doctrine'.
What specifically is the 'modern roman offshoot' church...?
What specifically is this "Reformed Doctrine"...?
QuoteI'll not give chapter and verse to facilitate an argument - those that dare, can study for themselves. It is all public domain.
Shocking! You claim it exists, but you won't SUPPORT it.
So it's ONLY 1 Chapter and Verse?
QuoteIf you do not ask the question - how will you ever search for an answer?
I'm asking the Questions...I always have.
Ready when you are.
regards
-
On 12/22/2017 at 4:40 PM, MorningGlory said:
This theory would actually make sense because we know God created the universe to work in an orderly and efficient way. His universe is ever expanding and will until He decides to stop it. I believe He put in place the mechanisms to do that.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/supermassive-black-holes-may-control-204300071.html
Black Holes don't EXIST!!
1. Scientifically Validate Black Holes...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?2. Black Holes were conjured from the "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagics of Einstein's Field Equations...
'Black Holes were first discovered as purely mathematical solutions of Einstein's field equations. This solution, the Schwarzschild black hole, is a nonlinear solution of the Einstein equations of general Relativity. It contains no matter, and exists forever in an asymptotically flat space-time."
Dictionary of Geophysics, Astrophysics, and Astronomy, pg 55"It contains no matter"
oh my, come again? "and exists forever"... in the Imagination.
Translation: Fairytale
Can you show us one?
If you can't show one, can you please at least show ONE Solution to ANY of Einstein's "DeBunked" Mytho-matheMagical Field Equations for 2 or more masses?
I'll save you some time... It Doesn't Exist !
regards
-
On 12/22/2017 at 11:43 AM, Justin Adams said:
I will leave you with this information.
Saul's scripture collection and what he studied in the Sanhedrin was a lot thicker than yours is.
This is Irrelevant Anyways but...You sure about that? Post the # of Scriptural Documents from Paul's collection...?
QuoteWhat he considered 'scripture' you would disavow as being 'uninspired' (a Roman thought).
What on Earth?? How in the World can you make such an Irrelevant, Nonsensical Claim??
SUPPORT...?
QuoteThis is a great computer comparison age we live in. So many of the words and complete phrases in 'your' scriptures were sourced from other than your collection.
What in the World are you talking about?
regards
-
2 hours ago, Kevinb said:
Well I'll always consider any evidence you have God did it?
For the ~85th TIME, to you personally...
1. Scientific Law: Information/"CODE"/Software is ONLY ever ever ever CAUSED by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
That is...whenever we find INFORMATION existing and trace it back to it's source...it invariably leads to an Intelligent Agent EVERY SINGLE TIME !!
SUPPORT:
1. Library of Congress.
2. ALL Books.
3. ALL Newspapers.
4. ALL Languages.
5. ALL Computer Software.
6. THE INFORMATION AGE !!!Null Hypothesis in Support: Nature/Natural Phenomena Causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes --- (INFORMATION).
If you 'cry foul' and claim there is No "Information" or "CODE" in the " Genetic CODE ", you're screwed...
"DNA has two types of DIGITAL INFORMATION — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes."
Hood, L., Galas, D.,: The Digital Code of DNA: Nature 421, 444-448 (23 January 2003) | doi :10.1038/nature01410"The genetic code performs a mapping between the sequences of the four nucleotides in mRNA to the sequences of the 20 amino acids in protein. It is highly relevant to the origin of life that the genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by THE SAME PRINCIPLES found both in the GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM and in MODERN COMPUTER and COMMUNICATION CODES."
Yockey, HP; Origin of life on earth and Shannon's theory of communication. In open problems of computational molecular biology. Computers and Chemistry; 24(1):105-123, Jan 2000I have roughly 1.8 Million more in SUPPORT, if needed.
Sooo...
Theist Position-- The Null Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation CAN NOT create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes. (DNA -- Transcription & Translation)
Your Position --Alternative Hypothesis: Nature/Natural Phenomena causation *CAN* create Algorithmic Cybernetic CODING and de-CODING Schemes.
So essentially, you MUST SHOW: Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules Authoring Technical Instruction Manuals/Blueprints...?
We'll wait.
If not: Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.
2. Quantum Mechanics:a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior.
b. Alternative Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing);
Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter).Null Hypothesis: If the Environment is the mechanism for Wave-Function Collapse (i.e., "Decoherence" --- interaction of quanta with a physical measuring device "Slit Detectors") then we WILL NOT observe any change in pattern (All Detectors will denote ' No Interference ').
c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands (Without Exception !!) would you like??
1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.
"The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/[THEREFORE, The LACK of 'which-path' Information anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]
2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5.
The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information SOLELY collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdfIn conclusion, this Experiment Unequivocally Validates:
a. Knowledge (Knowing) the 'WHICH-PATH' Information ALONE causes Wave Function Collapse.
b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse.
c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Space-Time has NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics.Ergo: "Matter" (Our Reality) doesn't exist without, FIRST:
A "Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information.
That is MATTER is Derivative (The Consequent).
Consciousness is Primary (Necessary Antecedent).To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...
Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 .... ( "The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [ YOU, as it were ] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model."
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdfA Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?Alice in Wonderland has more veracity and is more tenable than your position.
Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.
3. Laws of Thermodynamics:
1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT): The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. (Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy).
2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT): The amount of energy available for work is running out, the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.
If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the Universe will End — the 'Heat Death’(The Big Chill) of the Universe; ERGO...it had a BEGINNING (CREATION)-- and not the 'big bang' Pseudo-Science Trainwreck.
Since the First Law (1LOT) states that Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy Matter/Energy.
AND...
Since the Universe had a BEGINNING (2LOT),
AND...
Since there are ONLY Two Choices, (Nature vs Intelligent Design)--- for 'The HOW' of that Beginning...
AND...
Since "Matter" (Nature) CAN'T Pre-Exist before it's Existence then Poof itself into Existence (before that... Poof itself from Nothing into Pre-Existence)...Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.
4. Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity:
Hallmarks reveal: Intent, Purpose, Planning, Choice, often with Contingency, CONTRIVED; without deterministic law like necessity.
Example: Functional Interlinked Systems.There are 3 Types of Complexity 1) random sequence complexity (RSC), 2) ordered sequence complexity (OSC), or 3) Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)."
Random (RSC): fgskztosbclgdsk. e.g., Aftermath of a Tornado.
Order (OSC): hhhhhhdddddduuuuuu. e.g., Crystals, Snow Flakes, Sand Dunes, Fractals.Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC): "It Puts The Lotion in the Basket", Sand Castles, The Genetic CODE, Barbecue Grills, Indy Cars, Hyper-NanoTech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Flagellum, Cilia....ad nauseam) et al.
So RSC and OSC = "Nature" construct.
FSC = Intelligent Design Construct.
"In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity".
Leslie E. Orgel; The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection, pg. 189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973)"The attempts to relate the idea of order...with biological organization or SPECIFICITY must be regarded as a play on words that cannot stand careful scrutiny. Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors".
H.P. Yockey; "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory"; Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 1977; p. 390.No amount of RSC or OSC or the combination thereof, will EVER lead to Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC).
Examples FSC:
Cholecystokinin: is a Peptide Hormone "Functional Protein" produced in the mucosal epithelium of the small intestine and stimulates release of Digestive Enzymes from the Pancreas vital for digestion and absorption...
Without it, you die.Albumin: a "Functional Protein" is ONLY produced by the Liver. It's consists of a single polypeptide chain of 580 amino acids. Of it's many functions, it's Main Function is to maintain intravascular oncotic (colloid osmotic) pressure. It's vital to homeostasis... Without it, you die.
They are Functionally Specific/Sequentially Complex...you cannot interchange them. They are Specifically Designed for their Specific Roles and Specific Functions.
If anyone is having a case of the 'Willful Stupids', please call/email the SETI Institute (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) and ask them how they tell the difference between RSC/OSC and Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC); they'll Tighten their Shot Group, right quick.
btw, "INFORMATION" (All of Biology (LIFE): The Genetic Code ---Replication/ Transcription/Translation, Metabolic Pathways ect; All of Physics: Quantum Mechanics, Basically... ALL OF REALITY, is the Quintessential Example of Functional Sequence/Specified Complexity (FSC)
Therefore: 'A CREATOR'.
I have roughly 30 more
But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above.
QuoteLet's not forget Einstein via physics and mathematics showed black holes must exist 70 years before observation.
Einstein and his matheMagics have been "DEBUNKED" here on this forum countless times and to you personally at least 25 Times!!!
So Relativity, sr and gr via different mechanisms (Speed vs. Gravity), can: Dilate/Bend/Warp...TIME !!
1. Primary School Falsification:
TIME is a "Conceptual" relationship between 2 motions. Specifically, it's based on an "Alleged" single rotation of the Earth on it's axis in respect to the Sun (A Day).
It's a "CONCEPT" (Non-Physical). It is without Chemical Formula/Structure, no Dimensionality/Orthogonality, and no Direction or Location. You can't put some in a jar and paint in red.
I mean c'mon now, let's reason together...can you Dilate/Bend Warp Non-Physical "Concepts"??
Is it your contention that if you have Poison Ivy on the brain you could scratch it by thinking of Sand Paper??" FREEDOM " is a Concept also...can you Bend that?
That which you are using to measure...isn't the thing you're measuring.
** A Football Field is 100 Yards long but a Football Field isn't Yardsticks!! If I bend a Yardstick...does the Football Field bend also? **(The Yardsticks are analog to the Clock) -- (The Football Field is analog to TIME)
So if something affects say...Cesium Atomic Clocks, or any modern "Clock" for that matter, does that then IPSO FACTO mean the Earth's "Alleged" rotation in relation to the Sun is Affected?
These Two Mytho-matheMagical Fairytales (sr and gr) were falsified 30 seconds after their respective publications by 3rd graders @ recess, for goodness sakes.
IN TOTO, each are Massive Reification Fallacies on Nuclear Steroids!!2. Grown-Up Falsification:
"Non-Locality"-- a brief synopsis: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_nonlocality.html
Nonlocality occurs due to the phenomenon of entanglement, whereby particles that interact with each other become permanently correlated, or dependent on each other’s states and properties, to the extent that they effectively lose their individuality and in many ways behave as a single entity.
Because of this Well Established Phenomena in 1935, which Pummeled his Fairytales gr and sr, Einstein coined the phrase "Spooky Action @ a Distance", then he and his buddies conjured a 'thought experiment', (SEE: 'EPR Paradox' 1935 ) in a feeble clumsy attempt to 'Debunk' Quantum Mechanics.
Why? Well... he couldn't have anything traveling faster than the Speed of Light, cause his 'theories' would IMPLODE.
(Side Note: He never published in Physical Review Letters again because he didn't appreciate the Paper being "Peer-Reviewed" i.e., Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Scientific Bleep
http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777Because of the seemingly Impossibility of TESTING his 'thought experiment', it apparently covered the Pretentious Pompous Pseudo-Science Mytho-Mathemagical Philosopher's Butt and the very public argument between he and Niels Bohr (who was of the opposite position) was relegated to the dustbin of history never to be reconciled.
BUT THEN...
In the 1960's, John Bell explored Einstein's 'alleged' Paradoxical thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality). If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theories would take a dirt nap.
http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdfThen John Clauser, a frustrated Grad Student...because of his poor grades in QM, was rustling through books and papers in the campus library when he came across John Bell's Paper.
And that, as they say folks, is HISTORY !! ...
Bell's Inequality was first Violated Experimentally in 1972 by John Clauser and Stuart Freedman:
http://dieumsnh.qfb.umich.mx/archivoshistoricosMQ/ModernaHist/Freedman.pdfThen in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Jacked it "Yard" FOREVER !! Ergo, Einstein and his "theories" = Dirt Nap !! (He got "De-Bunked")
http://www.qudev.ethz.ch/phys4/studentspresentations/epr/aspect.pdfEver since Aspect's Falsification, "Non-Locality" has been CONFIRMED BY EXPERIMENT roughly 1875 times, Without Exception!!! See...
New Scientist "RealityCheck" 23 June 2007: Speaking to the Landmark Experiment: Gröblacher, S. et al; An experimental test of non-local realism Nature 446, 871-875 (19 April 2007) | doi :10.1038/nature05677.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html
"There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". Leggett's Inequality along with Bell's (again) have been violated. "Rather than passively observing it, WE IN FACT CREATE REALITY".
Physicsworld April 20 2007: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/apr/20/quantum-physics-says-goodbye-to-reality , also speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that, ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’Validated/CONFIRMED AGAIN (for the 1874th Time), here:
"Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place".
Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343.
http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.htmlAnd another, just a Flurry of Blows...
"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism.
Hensen, B et al: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686 (29 October 2015) doi:10.1038/nature15759
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.htmlWho else wants to Chime In on Realism (??) ...
Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226.
The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again)."The presence of PATH INFORMATION anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough."
[Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!]
"No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/THEREFORE: There are 2 Doors that can be breached per the results of these Experiments:
Door #1: Information (however they conjured that ??) can travel Faster than the Speed of Light. 'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!
Door #2: Space and Time are Illusions. 'Einstein's 'theories' KABLOOIE !!!
Take your pick....?Einstein himself after 30 years of attempting a Unified Field Theory finally reckoned with it prior to his death and was partial to the Latter Door (as am I)...
"I must confess that I was not able to find a way to explain the atomistic character of nature. My opinion is if that the objective description through the field as an elementary concept is not possible then one has to find a possibility to AVOID the continuum (together with SPACE and TIME) ALTOGETHER but I have not the slightest idea what kind of elementary concepts could be used in such a theory".
Letter from Albert Einstein to David Bohm, 28 October 1954.
Colodny, Robert G; From Quarks to Quasars--Philosophical Problems of Modern Physics: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1986, p. 380To overturn the Scientific Falsification of "Locality" and by direct proxy ---- Philosophical Naturalism/Realism (aka: atheism); whereby invalidating Idealism "Christianity" (which is not a "religion", btw) and as an ancillary benefit collect yourself a 'Feather in your Cap' Nobel Prize...
Please take up the Quantum Randi Challenge (arXiv:1207.5294, 23 July 2012)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.5294
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/official_quantum_randi_challenge-80168 ...
( The Quantum Randi Challenge, hence forth QRC, challenges any pseudo-scientist [You, as it were] who claims that quantum physics is not true and that quantum entanglement experiments can be explained by a classically realistic and locally causal model.)
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5294v1.pdfA Nobel Prize AND $1,000,000(USD) is being offered: All you have to do is...
Prove Naive Realism or Local Realism is True and not Observation Dependent.
4 Years + and still no takers, I wonder why?
I'll monitor the Presses!!A 2FER: Einstein's Mytho-matheMAGICAL Fairytales and atheism taken to the Woodshed and PUMMELED into the Incoherent Oblivion in One Fell Swoop!!
QuoteI don't see how to add God did it... unless you've evidence I've not heard?
This is tantamount to standing on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming: "What Ocean !!".
regards
-
23 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
Wow, then one would think you would be all in the news, huh?
Well I'm admonished not to seek such things...
(James 4:4) "Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God."
Is that
??
regards
-
1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:
The 'method' would have to be explained by the scientists who made these observations.
So you're PARROTING what you've been told without Due Diligence.
QuoteYour constant repeating yourself will not convince anyone that you are a 'scientist'.
If they can't figure it out in less than a Planck Time by the mere content of my posts...they have more "Pressing Issues".
QuoteIf you challenge these observations please contact those who made them.
I have for the Past 12 Years...they just call me names
.
You're PARROTING these Claims as TRUTH, so I challenged you to validate them.
ps. It's NOT "My" Job to Validate "YOUR" PARROTINGS.
QuoteYou are hardly qualified to dispute the claims of those who study these things.
I'm actually More Qualified than them because I know what ACTUAL "Science" is; whereas, they do not.
regards
-
9 minutes ago, Justin Adams said:
I am sorry Enoch, but you seem to have lost the plot.
Really?
Quote'God Breathed' means absolutely nothing.
So you're saying that this passage...
(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
... means Absolutely Nothing ?? I'm Speechless.
QuoteSorry to say, your nitpicking claims are rather baseless and sometimes even juvenile.
You're "Sorry to Say", after your last statement??
Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x3).
QuoteI do not have to explain myself to you.
You surely don't.
QuoteGod 'inspires' the whole universe.
But NOT His WORD, according to you.
QuoteFor you to say otherwise is to put Yahweh in a box of your own making.
Me?? You just said "otherwise". (SEE Above)
QuoteI suggest you do not do that anymore please.
regards
-
6 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
I'm not posting any of that and your numbered lists are really tiresome .
Yes, because you can't SUPPORT your PARROTED Claims.
QuoteI refer you to the article.
They can't SUPPORT them either.
QuoteIt's all in there except for a photo of the black hole.
What's a Black Hole?? Then Scientifically Validate...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?QuoteAstronomers ARE scientists...
Really WHY...?
Do you understand the Concept of SUPPORTING what you say, by chance?
Juxtapose (Compare and Contrast) SUPPORTED Claims vs Baseless 'bare' Assertions...?
Quoteyou are not.
My University Transcripts and Professional Evaluations would beg to differ.
QuoteIf you know Scripture you know that God spoke everything into being.
Yes, that's Correct.
QuoteHis word was the singularity.
So God's Word is the big bang's "Singularity", eh?
QuoteNot hard to figure out.
How did you figure that one out, por favor...? Illustrate your 'Method'...?
regards
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
I don't respond to orders to post anything.
Not orders
, a Call to SUPPORT your Claims. Since you won't, your claims are Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacies.
QuoteYour theory
Again, it's not "Mine" and it's not a "Theory".
Quoteis beyond the realm of logic or reason and very, very few people see it as anything other than backwards and laughable.
Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x5)
regards
-
1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:
Heiser is a very good source for early Hebrew and Mesopotamian knowledge.
Not their Knowledge, their "Languages".
QuoteHeiser said they were writing from their world view (not ours)
The AUTHOR of the Bible is "GOD", not the Penman.
(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
"God-Breathed".
So your (and Heiser's) Entire Appeal is "Debunked" right there.
regards
-
3 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
You have said absolutely nothing beyond your opinion.
First look up the definition of "Opinion" then...
2. Show each claim I made and validate it as an "Opinion" so as to SUPPORT your claim...?
QuoteI am not exasperated
You feigned exasperation. "Good Grief".
QuoteI am amazed that anyone believes the flat earth theory when it was abandoned over five centuries ago.
Argument to Age (Fallacy).
QuoteLogic has to enter the picture at some point.
Post the Syllogism then show where it's Invalid...? (To SUPPORT your claim)
QuoteI sincerely hope that casual readers here at Worthy realize that this theory is held by a tiny fraction of Christians.
Again it's not a "Theory"...and appealing to Numbers/Consensus is Fallacious.
regards
-
10 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
Astronomers have discovered a giant 'black hole' millions of light years away that offers a glimpse into the universe as it was over thirteen billion years ago. This is how God laid things out and I believe we are getting closer to being able to see that moment when, from a singularity, He spoke everything into being. If He permits.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/colossal-distant-black-hole-holds-surprises-early-universe-235944871.html
1. astronomy isn't "Science" and astronomers aren't "Scientists".
2. Scientifically Validate "black holes"...
a. What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b. Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c. Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d. Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?3. Scientifically Validate 13 Billion Years...? (See: The Scientific Method above).
4. Show a 'singularity' in Scripture...?
5. Post a PIC of this 'black hole'...?
regards
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, MorningGlory said:
First off, you are not a professor teaching a class.
I never claimed I was or teaching a class.
QuoteNo one in their right mind believes your theories.
It's not 'Mine' and it's not 'Theories'.
Define a 'Right Mind'...?
QuoteSecond, I didn't say YOU touted Heiser's words, I said flat earthers are doing that....and they are
But I'm a 'Flat Earther' and I touted his words. That's why we're discussing Heiser's Work here and now.
QuoteThird, why do you think because you tell anyone anything that they are supposed to believe it?
Because I SUPPORT the 'anythings'.
QuoteNot how the SPINNING BALL world works
The only working 'Spinning Balls' are in Disco's.
QuoteAnd fourth, you can't 'admonish' me or anyone else; you're just another poster and your opinions are no more important than anyone else's here.
1. I'm not expressing my "Opinions" (Subjective). I'm expressing Objective Facts and SUPPORTING them. Big Difference.
2. I'm admonished to admonish you...
(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
QuoteThe flat earth theory is a crock
It's not a "Theory".
WHY is it a crock...?
Quoteand I don't believe anyone in 2017 is seriously trying to argue it's validity.
Because it's SUPPORTED. What does 2017 have to do with anything?
QuoteGood grief.
Again feigned exasperations are not coherent arguments/positions.
regards
-
56 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
But the point is that this man is touted by flat earthers as saying the Earth is flat
You're still confused; I didn't 'tout' Dr Heiser as saying the Earth is Flat. I 'touted' Dr. Heiser for his Professional Acumen to CONFIRM that God Said the Earth was Flat. Big Difference.
ps. Stereotype Fallacy: "flat-earthers".
QuoteI don't really care about anyone's beliefs except my own anyway.
It sure sounded like you cared about Dr Heiser's "Beliefs"...you POSTED THEM.
QuoteThe Earth is a sphere spinning in space
I'd say there's a better chance of Liberace being resurrected sporting a purple tutu and jumping on a chartreuse hobbled unicorn and riding around the Sombrero Galaxy.
QuoteIf we have centuries of scientific observations
I've already admonished you-- by explanation and illustration countless times, that the Shape of something (Flat/Sphere) is outside the purview of The Scientific Method. So what on Earth are you talking about?
ps. Scientific Observations?? What's the difference between a Scientific Observation and just Plain Ole Observations? Goggles??
QuoteThe words 'flat' and 'domed' don't appear anywhere in those Scriptures
Ahhh yea they do, I already showed you...
(Revelation 20:9) "And they went up on the BREADTH of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.""Breadth" = "Platos" Strong's Greek Definition G4114 --- from G4116 (plat'-oos)..: Spread out "FLAT".The Passage (In English) should read: "And they went up on the Flat Earth and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.""Domed" wouldn't appear explicitly... because the word wasn't coined in those times; However, it's Prima Facie "Firmament".
You forgot "NOT-MOVED".
btw: Feigned Exasperations are not coherent arguments/positions.
regards
-
33 minutes ago, one.opinion said:
Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar) also said:
“It’s difficult for me to believe anyone is so gullible and, yes, stupid, to believe the earth is flat. But as with so many other nuggets of nonsense, social media has brought forth its exhibits to demonstrate that reality.”
Well everyone has an "Opinion". As mentioned, his "BELIEFS" are Irrelevant.
QuoteYou are taking literally passages that should not be taken literally.
Generalized Sweeping Ipse Dixit Baseless 'bare' Assertion Fallacy.
regards
-
4 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
Well, I read through all of the Scripture and I would say that it does not say the Earth is flat; it's simply interpretation.
So 'Na'ahh". You do realize that my post with all the Scriptures supporting my claims are what you're responding to... or did you just skip that part?
It Plainly Says, it's: Flat/Not-Moving/Domed/with the Sun, Moon and Stars moving (Geocentric).
The Meaning of Words are not "Interpretations".
QuoteAs for Dr. Michael Houser
It's Dr. Michael Heiser.
QuoteAs for Dr. Michael Houser, he has disavowed the claims by one flat earther who posted that Dr. Houser believed in a flat earth so he cannot be used as proof of anything.
I'm afraid you're somewhat confused. Your (and his) appeal is quite the Non-Sequitur...
Ya see, what Dr Michael Heiser "BELIEVES" is Painfully Irrelevant. We're interested in his Academic/Biblical Scholarship and what his Professional Acumen illuminates from Scripture.
So we have:
1. God's Word (That Dr. Michael Heiser Confirms) vs
2. Dr. Michael Heiser's "Beliefs"... or Dr. Michael Heiser's Word.
Savvy?
Which one will you follow?
regards
-
1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:
Please post the Scripture you reference.
Flat:
(Isaiah 40-22 ISV) "He's the one who sits above the DISK OF THE EARTH, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers. He's the one who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in".
(Revelation 20:9) "And they went up on the BREADTH of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
"Breadth" = "Platos" Strong's Greek Definition G4114 --- from G4116 (plat'-oos)..: Spread out "FLAT".
The Passage (In English) should read: "And they went up on the Flat Earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."
(Isaiah 40:21-22) "Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? {22} It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
(Proverbs 8:27-28) "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a CIRCLE ON the face of the deep, When He made firm the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed,
"Circle" = "chuwg" Strong's Hebrew Definition #02329...
1) circle, circuit, compass.
The Problem (for 'Spinning-Ballers')...
(Isaiah 22:18) "He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord's house."
"Ball" = "Duwr" Strong's Hebrew #01754...
1. Ball
2. Ball, CircleIf Isaiah wanted to tell you the Earth was a BALL "Sphere", he would have simply SAID SO... ("Duwr") !!
And, how can you "Inscribe" a "Sphere" ON anything, pray tell??"Face of the (whole) Earth" is used 35 Times in Scripture; can you show us the Face of a Sphere...?
(Job 38:4-7) "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. {5} Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it ? {6} Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; {7} When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
How can you STRETCH THE LINE on a Curved Foundation??
Non-Spinning "Immovable":(1 Chronicles 16:30) "Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be NOT-MOVED."
(Psalms 93:1) "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it CANNOT BE MOVED."
(Psalms 96:10) "Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall NOT BE MOVED: he shall judge the people righteously."
Geocentric:(Joshua 10:12) "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon."
If it was the Earth that was moving, Why didn't Joshua say: "EARTH STAND STILL"??
Domed:(Genesis 1:6) "And God said, Let there be a FIRMAMENT in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters."
(Genesis 1:7) "And God made the FIRMAMENT, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so."
(Genesis 1:8) "And God called the FIRMAMENT Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day."
(Genesis 1:14) " And God said, Let there be lights IN the FIRMAMENT of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"Firmament = Strong's #07549 // eyqr // raqiya` // raw-kee'-ah //
from 07554; TWOT - 2217a; n m
AV - firmament 17; 17
1) extended surface ("SOLID"), expanse, firmament
1a) expanse (flat as base, support)
1b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
1b1) considered by Hebrews as SOLID and supporting 'waters' above.Brown-Driver-Briggs:
רָקִיעַ noun masculineGenesis 1:6 extended surface, ("SOLID") expanse (as if beaten out; compare Job 37:18); — absolute ׳ר Ezekiel 1:22 +, construct ׳רְ Genesis 1:14 +; —ᵐ5 στερέωμα, ᵑ9 firmamentum, compare Syriac below √above; —
1 (flat) expanse (as if of ice, compare כְּעֵין הַקֶּרַח), as base, support (WklAltor. Forsch. iv. 347) Ezekiel 1:22,23,25(gloss ? compare Co Toy), Ezekiel 1:26 (supporting ׳י's throne). Hence (CoEzekiel 1:22)
2 the vault of heaven, or 'firmament,' regarded by Hebrews as SOLID, and supporting 'waters' above it.In Conclusion,
Dr. Michael S. Heiser (Renowned Bible Scholar)...
"The issue is how “literal creationists” are actually only selective literalists (or, as I would call them, “inconsistent literalists”). If one was truly consistent in interpreting the creation description in Genesis 1 at face value (along with other creation descriptions in BOTH TESTAMENTS), you’d come out with a round, flat earth, complete with solid dome over the earth, and earth supported by pillars, with Sheol underneath, etc. But creationists who claim the literal mantel don’t do that, since the results are clearly non-scientific. My view, as readers know, is that we ought to simply let the text say what it says, and let it be what it is. It was God’s choice to prompt people living millennia ago to produce this thing we call the Bible, and so we dishonor it when we impose our own interpretive context on it. Our modern evangelical contexts are alien to the Bible. Frankly, any context other than the context in which the biblical writers were moved to write is foreign to the Bible. So, who’s the literalist now?"
http://drmsh.com/interpreting-genesis-1-literalist/regards
-
10 hours ago, Justin Adams said:
If you read early Mesopotamian history and the world view of the early writers of the scriptures, you will note that indeed, their ideas were of a flattish earth.
1. Post the Early Writers of Scripture and their World-Views...? (Citations Please)
2. The Scriptures explicitly denote a: Flat/Non-Spinning/Domed/Geocentric Earth.
QuoteThis did not concern the Lord in the slightest.
What didn't concern the Lord in the slightest...? THEN...How do you know that it didn't concern the Lord in the slightest...?
QuoteHe told them to write from their perspectives and how they wrapped their world view around what they wrote was not a secret to Him. He did not care. He had a message and that was His concern.
Post the Scripture(s) where God told them to write from their perspectives...?
Are you implying that some/all of the 'early writers' of Scripture wrote their subjective opinions about Creation/Reality that were essentially UNTRUE...but God just 'let them roll' because HE wasn't all that concerned??
What does this Scripture Mean...
(2 Timothy 3:16) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"
????
QuoteThere are some 'medical' oversights in the scriptures; all just based on world views and current understandings.
Really?? For instance...?
THEN...Show how these were to fall under "Medical"...?
QuoteThe Lord was not going to give them all a 21st century education in the sciences and medical fields just so He could have them write His message down.
Can you please Define "Sorcery" in Scripture? What does it mean...? Please include Lexicon: Word/Meaning ect. Thanks
regards
-
4 hours ago, one.opinion said:
what would be much more meaningful (and difficult to explain) would be fossil bones out of place. Do you know of any examples like this?
What do you mean by "Out of Place"? "Out of Place" from a Dreamed up Convention/Narrative?? Wouldn't that still be a Textbook Begging The Question Fallacy??
And/Or are you "Upping Your Game" and going full bore head long into a Denying The Antecedent (Formal Logical Fallacy) ...
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, Not Q.If they are buried together (P) then they both existed together. (Q)
They're not buried together. (Not P)
Therefore, they didn't exist together. (Therefore, not Q)regards
But they would be Painfully Redundant in lieu of the above.
Super massive black holes may control galaxy formation
in Science and Faith
Posted
Yes, it's a Request for others to SUPPORT their Claims.
Red Herring (Fallacy) - is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html
Red Herring Fallacy.
Start another thread and I'll be more than happy to address your concerns. For now, Scientifically Validate your Black Hole Fairytale...?
regards