do black holes exist, or do scientists have it wrong?

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

 

 

Blessings Scintillic_Atom_Marriage

    I would like to welcome you to Worthy,so glad you have come to join us and I see you have already met with alpha,Enoch & Fez........just wonderful people that I dearly love,see Christians can be passionate for science too,,,,,,,,,,,,in my day I was a science major but lost my enthusiasm along the way,at last you reach a day of "satisfaction"where you can appreciate the wonders or science & the Glory of God,,,,,well,I did anyway

     I so appreciate your zeal,your hunger,your inquiring mind............I hope you enjoy this Blessed Ministry & all the loving people brought here by God................to say"We love you & are glad you are here"                  With love-in Christ,Kwik

That's actually really nice. Thank you.

 

Enoch: I'm guessing you just skimmed my first post here. That second instance of sloppy editing I mentioned and apologized for wasn't entirely my fault. Sentences following from a initial statement generally have something to do with the thought that preceded it.

#2. Can you please show exactly where this is out of Context?  Good Luck

F'sure. 

 

Dr. Venter: The academics might not like it, but peer review is like the prisoners running the prison. They're not going to vote for change. Universities like this system because it helps support the universities. We have to change it so that 25%, 30%, 40% of the money is set aside for true risk research with independent parties to do that. That's going to disrupt a lot of things. I argue that the American public should be outraged that there's not 10 times to 100 times more breakthroughs in medicine every year over what we're getting, particularly for the money that's being spent.

 

I also missed some context which I'll fill in now. The larger context this comes from is from an interview about the difficulties of curing the common cold and why the ongoing research to vaccinate people is a stop gap measure. In the question before this one it is one that asks why the various companies and universities that are funding the research are funding research that is profitable, not necessarily the research that would best benefit people or would most greatly advance the total knowledge of the human race. (Perfect example with the current ebola plague. Six months ago our (The Australian) Prime Minister's office shut down many of our government funded medical research facilities. Including one that was working on the ebola vaccine that is currently undergoing trials in Africa. [snip]A brief tirade against politicians in general and the Abbot government in particular.[/snip])

 

This is not an indictment on "Peer Review" in the form of circulating research and getting it checked by others. (Which is what you implied.) It's an indictment of the larger context under which research is financed and the results published. As a result the "Imprisoned Scientists" who are trapped by the peer review system are running the prison because when put into a position of power they choose to focus on the more profitable research rather than that which best serves people as a whole. Despite that being what they presumably want to do.

 

It's anti-capitalism. Not pro-ludite.

 

And I was also wrong, at least in part, about the Michael Crichton quote. It's from a lecture he gave in 2003 called "Aliens Cause Global Warming"

 

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

 

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

 

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

The point you left out here is the underlined section. (The "emboldened" section being what you quoted.) It hasn't been demonstrated that the Theories of Relativity are inaccurate or that the positions you have supported are factually true. (Not all the positions you may hold. It would be disengenious of me to say that. Just the one's you've mentioned so far that have been debunked. [see below for continuation.])

 

Special relativity is one of the best supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects general relativity and is a foundation of quantum mechanics. It supports our current models of the nature of time and space. Every prediction it has made has proven to be accurate. (With the possible exception of "Field equations for two or more masses" I think that may be a variation on the two and three body problem, which have been solved but I'm keeping an open mind for when you get back to me on that.)

 

Even if it were shown to be inaccurate on some points it would be replaced by something that is exactly like it except for those exceptions. That's what we did with Newtonian mechanics.

 

Because it works.

 

So yes. Quote mine on both points.

 

#1.  If you glance @ it superficially,  I would probably agree;  However, Conceptually...it's not.  Notwithstanding, because I have to explain this in detail every time I post this on forums (and they still can't understand it...I'm sure it has nothing to do with any "a priori" adherences).....I'll rescind it.

 

I'll just roll with this instead (Since it comes directly from my hand)...

I'm honestly not sure what you mean. There's some confusing syntax here. I get that your going to demonstrate your point about the bancrupcy of the scientific method but I'm not sure what thought of mine you're responding too or if this is more than a slightly convoluted segue that I just don't understand. 

 

Not sure if the introduction to point #1 is important so if it is, please inform me.

 

Since "Science" is bound to it's "Method", whosoever doesn't follow "The Method" can't be "science" by definition.

 

Not really. Science in it's application is a prediction of phenomena. The "Scientific Method" is just a formalized way of doing it that has been proven to produce results. (You're using an extremely impressive result right now.) Same with other thought tools like formal reason or various mathematical proofs.

 

It's simpler applications are still science, just less formal. "If I input energy to this sharpened stick and propel it towards that animal I will get meat." Is a predictive model of the universe that may produce meat. "This hunk of meat is larger than that hunk of meat. I will receive more calories from it." Is an application of reason and displays a learnt understanding of how a part of the universe functions.

 

It's just raw-er. Like the meat.

 

Let's expose the Pretenders, eh? ...... Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology, because you can't do "repeatable" TESTS/Experiments.

 

You're going to need really good proof to convince me anybody that these are "Pretend science." (Though badly done anthropology is quite close. It's still science it's just... Intuitive and inelegant.)

 

Paleontology is applied evolutionary biology, which is applied comparative anatomy, which is applied biology.

Anthropology is the application of history, sociology, psychology, biology, Or to put it another way. Anthropology is the application of applied, applied, applied biology, applied, applied biology, applied biology and biology.

Geology is applied chemistry, physics and tectonics.

Evolutionary Biology is applied comparative biology, genetics and biochemistry.

Theoretical Physics is applied mathmatics.

Cosmology is applied quantum physics and a touch of chemistry. (Like a tablespoons worth of sugar in the sea.)

 

And you can absolutely repeat cosmological experiments. I'm just going to reference the most famous as I'm fairly sure you're familiar with it.

A prediction made by the big bang theory was that the amount of radiation observable in the apparent universe would be approximately 160gigahertz. (I believe that it was a prediction of 158-163Ghz but ti's late and I don't feel like looking it up.) When they put the hypothesis to the test and measured the Universal Background Radiation they found that it was 160.2GHz. The experiment is repeatable in that whenever somebody else measures the UBR they will find it to be 160.2GHz and any alternate cosmological model they put forward would need to account for a level of microwave radiation equivalent to that.

 

You can't TEST Past Events!

 

You walk into a room and see an overturned table, broken glass on the floor, a dead goldfish in the middle of the glass and a pool of warm water. You couldn't test how that happened could you? You can't observe evidence and construct a scenario that would produce those four things in parallel could you? It's in the past and beyond our reach forever. Just flush the fish and let it go.

 

Observations are not TESTS!

 

Of course not. Observation is a single component of a test. Would you say that bread is a sandwich?

 

Predictions are not TESTS!

 

Of course not. Would you say that sliced deli meat is a sandwich?

 

Models are not TESTS!

 

Of course not. Would you call a sandwich; butter?
 

Similarities do not Show Causation!

Mathematics merely Describes!

 

True statements. How are they relevant?

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

The forum didn't let me post the entire response (Too many blocks of quoted text.) so I broke it in half. Thirds actually.

 

 

So you have "science" Masqueraders out there professing "a priori" adherence's to fairytales to everyone with an ear (The Populace @ Large).... that just by PURE COINCIDENCE, need a "Title" to fly their (GOD-less) flag under-----"science"..... so as to pseudo-justify their own contrived World-View then march around with a Facade of Self-Concocted Pseudo-Legitimacy under the guise of "science".  The Masqueraders of course know this (because they started it with these self-same goals in mind) and are more than willing to "keep the ball rolling" because they know as Absolute Fact that if you continuously repeat the same fairytales over and over again it becomes Reality.  After a generation or so of "Dumbing Down" everyone so they wouldn't know what Real Science, Due Diligence, or Critical Thinking Skills were if they landed on their heads and whistled Dixie, the idea of: Sand Dunes and Sand Castles being conceptually the same, something from nothing, and "Nature" writing Books of Encrypted Code" seems plausible.  That's why when confronted to show their "Mountains of Evidence"....all you get in response is: "science says so" (Of course, that's a Logical Fallacy: Reification) accompanied by a smorgasbord of self-deluding Logical Fallacies.  Not only does the Emperor have no clothes...there is No Emperor!!!

 

Without the Scientific Method that makes science "Science"; to VALIDATE their " a priori findings", the Masqueraders need a "stand in" to Prop it Up......"Peer Review".  They need a Consensus to propagate their fairytales.  So then they create a Mantra "Publish or Perish".  So the Gate Keepers, of the propagated "a priori" fairytales, solicit others to submit their fairytales to see if they marry up with the their Fairytales.  Well the solicitees know the game and if they want to keep their jobs and climb the ladder of success they better submit similar Fairytales that corroborate the Gate Keepers Fairytales.  If the solicitees don't fall in line, (The ones that hold Integrity and Honor above self ambition via deceit), they get Black-Balled (Expelled) by the Gate Keepers and Peer-Review turns into Peer-Pressure....that forces them to make a choice: either fall in the Fairytale Line or Find yourself picking up cans along the side of the Road!!

This is word salad. You haven't constructed a point.

 

You seem passionate about this. Please calm down and start with your first premise.

 

"The Peer Review System and NASA itself which is very conformist will always do just that, that's one of the reasons why the Road ahead is hammered out, as {Fred}Hoyle said, anytime you point a New Telescope to the sky now you're only going to find what you already know is up there".
Geoffrey Burbridge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 No "A Priori" adherences here.

 

A quote by itself means nothing- S_A_M (Australia. Spare Office at home. The Comfortable Chair. 22/10/14)

 

It's an appeal to authority and that's fallacious. (It worked too. I spent an hour reading up on Crichton and Venter.) You still haven't demonstrated your point and I'm not going to look up the specific context of that quote this time because you reference the specific example right after.

 

This was a video interview in the context of Halton "Chip" Arp Astrophysicist (Who was "Expelled"; SEE Above...Gate Keepers/Fairytales ect) when he Exposed the Fairytale Red Shift Fiasco; which took the big bang out to the Woodshed... for the 537th time.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "The Red Shift Fiasco." I assume that it refers to the phenomina that light appears to be blue shifted when calculated using special relativity and red shifted when calculated using general relativity. That's actually quite simple horribly complicated. It's just not intuitive. (I know how this works but I've never quite wrapped my head around it.)

 

Special relativity means, in it's simplest possible form, Physics as applied to very fast things. General relativity covers all other cases. (Gross oversimplification but it works for this instance.) So when observing light from an object traveling at the speed of light, the light would appear blue shifted. You're meeting the light as it comes to you. "Pushing it back." That's the Doppler effect in action.

 

So if light is emitted from an object that is traveling at the speed of light and is observed by an object that is also traveling at the speed of light. We can intuit that they would appear to be traveling at the same rate. If we pull to cars up against each other when they're traveling at the same speed they appear to cross ground with each other. However what happens is that light emitted by both light speed objects still appears blue shifted. In order to appear that way light would have to be traveling faster than itself. (This is also where time dilation comes from. That's not relevant but I think you'll bring it up so I'm just getting ahead of the game and say that it's not relevant to this specific instance of this conversation.)

 

So rather than using the general case for calculating red or blue shift using special relativism needs to use an exception that accounts for that. An equation we have. (There is also the "Red Shift Fiasco" that applies to light as bent by gravity but this is the version I'm more familiar with.)

 

Am I making sense?

 

Anything Else?

Oh honey: I can do this all night. But I won't as I'm tired.

 

Goodnight everybody.

[kwikphilly]

G'nite Friend,,,,,,,

 

That's actually really nice. Thank you.

       Your very welcome,,,,,,it is my pleasure meeting you,look forward to seeing you around                     With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==================================================================================

 

The point you left out here is the underlined section. (The "emboldened" section being what you quoted.) 

 

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."

 

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

 

 

Peer Review is.....Consensus!!  It's not "Quote Mined" there sir.  He's Juxtaposing "REAL" Science....that's based on the Scientific Method (As I discussed previously) and Consensus.....the Masqueraders.

 

Notice he said..."Science....requires only one investigator". -----this is speaking to Validation via the Scientific Method.  Do you see any "Peers", as in Plural, in that statement? 

 

Oh, and I didn't "Leave it out"....it's a different sentence.

 

 

It hasn't been demonstrated that the Theories of Relativity are inaccurate or that the positions you have supported are factually true.

 

 

If there are No Known Solutions to the matheMagics then it's falsified from Jump Street.

 

I also Step by Step summarily falsified it with the "TIME" example!  And then One more for the Cherry on Top....

 

Einstein proposed a thought experiment to debunk Quantum Mechanics: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

 

The Proposition:  If you placed 2 particles in a joint superposition then separated them by a great distance, an observation of "one" couldn't affect the other Instantly; because if it did... that would mean---Information had to travel faster than the Speed of Light; Ergo....invalidating Relativity.  Einstein termed it "Spooky action @ a distance."

 

In the 1960's (and many times subsequent), John Bell explored Einstein's thought experiment and proposed an Inequality (Bell's Inequality).  If it was shown to be false, Einstein and his theory would take a dirt nap. http://www.drchinese.com/David/Bell_Compact.pdf

 

Well in 1982, Alain Aspect PhD Physics Violated Bell's Inequality: Ergo....Einstein and Theory = Dirt Nap: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/446866a.html

 

Strike 3!

 

I get that your going to demonstrate your point about the bancrupcy of the scientific method but I'm not sure what thought of mine you're responding too or if this is more than a slightly convoluted segue that I just don't understand

 

 

You're missing the entire concept altogether.  The Scientific Method isn't Bankrupt....it's GOLD.

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

My point is the Masqueraders don't and can't use it by the Inherent Characteristics of their discipline; Ergo, they're not "Science".  You see...Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology, most Geology, evolutionary biology (which is a contradiction in terms; one is a pseudo- historical science slapped together incoherently with an Empirical Science), Theoretical Physics (there are echelons here don't go all Maxwell on me). Throw in Cosmology.

 

They are Inquiries dealing with the PAST, or in Cosmologies Case (One off events; Ergo, not Repeatable).  You can't do Experiments/TESTS on the PAST unless you have a time machine.  And what do the majority of these "alleged" science disciplines do with their time.....Tell us there is no GOD (That's what they call "A TELL").  All they have are Extrapolations from Assumptions, Begging The Question Fallacies, and Just So Stories....then Masquerade these under the "Title" of "science" of which they are not!

Savvy?

 

 

It's simpler applications are still science, just less formal.

 

 

Factually Incorrect.  Hypothesis TESTING is the only game in town; Ergo....The Scientific Method or it's not Science. Period, End of Story.

 

"The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary. Experiments may test the theory directly (for example, the observation of a new particle) or may test for consequences derived from the theory using mathematics and logic (the rate of a radioactive decay process requiring the existence of the new particle). Note that the necessity of experiment also implies that a theory must be testable. Theories which cannot be tested, because, for instance, they have no observable ramifications (such as, a particle whose characteristics make it unobservable), do not qualify as scientific theories." (Emphasis Mine)

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

 

It has to be: Observable, Testable, Repeatable, Falsifiable.

 

 

"If I input energy to this sharpened stick and propel it towards that animal I will get meat." Is a predictive model of the universe that may produce meat. "This hunk of meat is larger than that hunk of meat. I will receive more calories from it." Is an application of reason and displays a learnt understanding of how a part of the universe functions.

 

 

What does this have to do with Unobserved Postulates from the Past that the Science Masqueraders peddle?  Absolutely Nothing.

 

 

And you can absolutely repeat cosmological experiments.

 

 

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.”

Quoted in.....Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848–1850, 2007.

 

Martin Lopez Corredoria PhD Astronomer...

"Cosmology is not Science".

 

 

Paleontology is applied evolutionary biology, which is applied comparative anatomy, which is applied biology.

Anthropology is the application of history, sociology, psychology, biology, Or to put it another way. Anthropology is the application of applied, applied, applied biology, applied, applied biology, applied biology and biology.

Geology is applied chemistry, physics and tectonics.

Evolutionary Biology is applied comparative biology, genetics and biochemistry.

Theoretical Physics is applied mathmatics.

Cosmology is applied quantum physics and a touch of chemistry. (Like a tablespoons worth of sugar in the sea.)

 

 

Baloney IN TOTO.

 

Please show One Experiment for any of the Science Masqueraders.  I want to see the Dependent/Independent/and Control Variables....?

 

Evolutionary Biology is Genetics and Biochemistry, eh?  OK....

 

DNA/RNA/"Functional Proteins" NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.

It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.

That's just the Hardware!

 

DNA "CODE"/Software------------------Design(Intelligence)--------------------Designer!

 

To refute:

 

1. Prove that the Genetic CODE is not....."CODE"/Software. OR....

2. Prove that Atoms/Molecules have Sentience and Intelligence.

 

 

A prediction made by the big bang theory was that the amount of radiation observable in the apparent universe would be approximately 160gigahertz.

 

 

Reification Fallacy:  The Big Bang doesn't Predict...it's not Alive.  It's also a Begging The Question Fallacy.....prove the big bang first.

 

Please CITE Source (with Date and Time) of this "Prediction".....?

 

And the CMB is a Fairytale, SEE (Scroll half way down):

 

 

You walk into a room and see an overturned table, broken glass on the floor, a dead goldfish in the middle of the glass and a pool of warm water. You couldn't test how that happened could you? You can't observe evidence and construct a scenario that would produce those four things in parallel could you? It's in the past and beyond our reach forever. Just flush the fish and let it go.

 

 

You can come up with "Plausible Scenarios" but it can never be VALIDATED via the Scientific Method.

 

This is Forensic "Science" (Historical Science).

 

Tell me, How many people have been convicted of a crime due to "Forensics" that have latter been found Innocent (False Positives)?

 

How many (False Positives) does it take to scuttle a hypothesis, "actual" Theory, or a Scientific Law?  Hint: it's less that 2 and more than ZERO

 

 

AND, I already commented on the Venter quote...it's done.  I'm not explaining it again.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=============================================================

 

The forum didn't let me post the entire response (Too many blocks of quoted text.) so I broke it in half. Thirds actually.

 

 

When you're in the Preview Screen, scroll up and delete some quotes from the message you are replying to...that should fix your problem.

 

 

Without the Scientific Method that makes science "Science"; to VALIDATE their " a priori findings", the Masqueraders need a "stand in" to Prop it Up......"Peer Review".  They need a Consensus to propagate their fairytales.  So then they create a Mantra "Publish or Perish".  So the Gate Keepers, of the propagated "a priori" fairytales, solicit others to submit their fairytales to see if they marry up with the their Fairytales.  Well the solicitees know the game and if they want to keep their jobs and climb the ladder of success they better submit similar Fairytales that corroborate the Gate Keepers Fairytales.  If the solicitees don't fall in line, (The ones that hold Integrity and Honor above self ambition via deceit), they get Black-Balled (Expelled) by the Gate Keepers and Peer-Review turns into Peer-Pressure....that forces them to make a choice: either fall in the Fairytale Line or Find yourself picking up cans along the side of the Road!!

 

This is word salad. You haven't constructed a point.

 

 

I'm sorry, that's the most basic I can get with it.  And the point is quite clear, IMHO.

 

 

You seem passionate about this. Please calm down and start with your first premise.

 

 

Yes, I am.  And I am quite calm.  As stated, I already explained my position.

 

 

"The Peer Review System and NASA itself which is very conformist will always do just that, that's one of the reasons why the Road ahead is hammered out, as {Fred}Hoyle said, anytime you point a New Telescope to the sky now you're only going to find what you already know is up there".

Geoffrey Burbridge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory  

No "A Priori" adherences here.

 

A quote by itself means nothing- S_A_M (Australia. Spare Office at home. The Comfortable Chair. 22/10/14)

 

 

That's why I connected it to My Entire Explanation on "Peer Review/Masqueraders/ Expelled/Gate Keepers ect"... the one you said was "Word Salad".  Maybe if you didn't "Quote Mine" it from out of my context it wouldn't be "by itself" as you just portrayed.

 

 

It's an appeal to authority and that's fallacious.

 

 

Factually Incorrect.  

 

Appeal To Authority--- Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/21-appeal-to-authority

 

Geoffrey Burbridge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory...was (Deceased), an Expert in his Field and can speak to "Peer Review" from Professional Experience.

 

So your claim is a Baseless Assertion (Ironically, Fallacious) and Erroneous.

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "The Red Shift Fiasco."

 

 

This one.....

 

 

Special relativity means, in it's simplest possible form, Physics as applied to very fast things. General relativity covers all other cases.

 

 

Special Relativity deals with "Flat Land".  General Relativity deals with Pseudo-Riemannian Geometry.  To be more precise.

 

 

(This is also where time dilation comes from. That's not relevant but I think you'll bring it up so I'm just getting ahead of the game and say that it's not relevant to this specific instance of this conversation.)

 

Yes, I've already taken "Time Dilation" to the Woodshed.

 

 

Oh honey: I can do this all night. But I won't as I'm tired.

 

 

Then I guess you couldn't do it all night then. And, what is it exactly that you are doing?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Enoch

    Hey Brother,,,,,,I do enjoy reading your posts & we haven't spoken in quite some time,I believe you do know my reasons from refraining from these discussions & you do a fine job of separating fact from fallacy without any input from me,,,,,,I would like to ask you a favor,& you usually end up there anyway-lol..............would you join with me in giving God ALL the Glory for the knowledge He gives us,the Praise & Honor that He alone deserves for the Wonderful,Amazing,Incredible Universe He created for us tho explore & delight in........& of course,let us give thanks to Him that He has given us yet another day to enjoy it all!!!!!!Hallelulyah!!!!

   Enoch,I just thought you might like this little moment!!!!God Bless you                 With love-in Christ,Kwik

[Enoch2021]

Sorry, I missed this....

 

Special relativity is one of the best supported theories in the history of the world.  It corrects general relativity and is a foundation of quantum mechanics.

 

Huh?      Special Relativity was postulated in 1905.  General Relativity was postulated in 1916.  How can something be a "Correction" for another thing that didn't exist for over 10 years?

 

 

Huh?    Where are you getting your information from?

 

Einstein didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics...he tried to Debunk It lol:  Einstein proposed a thought experiment to debunk Quantum Mechanics: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

 

Ironically, it "Debunked" Him.

 

 

Does Special Relativity ("one of The best supported theories in the history of the world") postulate that nothing can go faster than the Speed of Light?  If so, it's in BIG Trouble!      

 

 

The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics were set by: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, et al.

[Enoch2021]

Blessings Enoch

    Hey Brother,,,,,,I do enjoy reading your posts & we haven't spoken in quite some time,I believe you do know my reasons from refraining from these discussions & you do a fine job of separating fact from fallacy without any input from me,,,,,,I would like to ask you a favor,& you usually end up there anyway-lol..............would you join with me in giving God ALL the Glory for the knowledge He gives us,the Praise & Honor that He alone deserves for the Wonderful,Amazing,Incredible Universe He created for us tho explore & delight in........& of course,let us give thanks to Him that He has given us yet another day to enjoy it all!!!!!!Hallelulyah!!!!

   Enoch,I just thought you might like this little moment!!!!God Bless you                 With love-in Christ,Kwik

 

 

If I didn't start with GOD, THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.... Jesus Christ, then that was a huge mistake on my part.  There is nothing without HIM.

 

I'm a living breathing example....HE'S given me all that I have and am; cause I'm an Idiot!

 

"you usually end up there anyway"---  Yes I Do,  If I ever don't....don't hesitate to "Remind Me"  

 

 

May The LORD Bless You and Yours,

 

Thanks

[kwikphilly]

Ahhh,thats the Enoch I know & love and so does Jesus,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,your welcome Brother,& you do the same if ever I need a reminder

     All Glory be to God!!!!                                                With much love<kwik

 

 

Hebrews 11:3 - Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

[Scintillic_Atom_Marriage]

I'm on my phone and as so I'm just answering a little of this spiel now. This balooned out faster than I thought it would.

If I didn't start with GOD, THE KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.... Jesus Christ, then that was a huge mistake on my part. There is nothing without HIM.

I'm a living breathing example....HE'S given me all that I have and am; cause I'm an Idiot!

Would you mind if I used that as my sig?

==================================================================

You don't need 2 masses to have gravity, though you can draw parallels to the case of electromagnetism

First of all "Electromagnetism" and "Gravity" are two different things, one reason is they're two different words. And "Charges"? Where'd you get them....Atoms? That's "Matter"....and there's more than Two.

You're either not paying attention or I'm failing to explain. Possibly both.

OK. An analogy. Space time is a large sheet stretched taut over a frame. I take a cricket ball and it creates an impression on the fabric. It pushes down and warps the sheet.

I take a marble and put it on the sheet. It rolls down to meet the cricket ball and the cricket ball rolls, ever so slightly towards it. The masses have been drawn to each other by the force of gravity.

The impression in the fabric is there wether or not the a second mass is there. Gravity is mass acting on the fabric of space time.

Ignore the electromagnetism example. It just complicates the issue.

Sorry, I missed this....

Special relativity is one of the best supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects general relativity and is a foundation of quantum mechanics.

Huh? Special Relativity was postulated in 1905. General Relativity was postulated in 1916. How can something be a "Correction" for another thing that didn't exist for over 10 years?

Huh? Where are you getting your information from?

Einstein didn't believe in Quantum Mechanics...he tried to Debunk It lol: Einstein proposed a thought experiment to debunk Quantum Mechanics: A. Einstein, B. Podolosky, N. Rosen: http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

Ironically, it "Debunked" Him.

Does Special Relativity ("one of The best supported theories in the history of the world") postulate that nothing can go faster than the Speed of Light? If so, it's in BIG Trouble!

The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics were set by: Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac, et al.

I mispoke: General relativity is one of the most supported theories in the history of the world. It corrects special relativity blah, blah, blah. What I said before with the terms reversed.

And in that: "Blah, blah, blah" lies the answer to your response. It's an exception. We're replacing reletivity with something that looks just like it ty except that can account for quantum entanglement. We didn't say that Newtonian mechanics was invalid because it failed to accurately model Mercury's orbit. Because it applies so well in every other case. It's the same thing here.

Now we just need to explain why quantum entanglement works the way it does. (It will take a long time and I'm glad I'm not the one doing it.)

Why would Eienstein objecting to Quantum Mechanic's matter more than any other dude? He was evidently wrong. Science is a self correcting process.

I'm getting my information from 2/3'ds remembered science lessons and agamenting that with the internet when I'm not sure or don't understand something. Why do you ask?

Edit: I mixed terms again. Reletivity. Not Quantum Mechanics.

Edited October 22, 2014 by Scintillic_Atom_Marriage