gaelllic:

Hello. And I applaud you for your cordial tone.

Hi again.

'Falsifiability means 'can be/is able to be proven wrong'. In other words, it has to be testable.

E.g. When Ferrarri boast, "our car can hit 300km/h", thulations as evidence (and neither would we accept them).

They give a test-driver the keys. And everyone can watch. This is what falsifiability means.

Thanks for the lesson in definitions. However, I fail to see your point.

Name one piece of direct evidence for the Big Bang. Direct. Yes, you can measure CMB, but we are required to presume that it is relic radiation. Yes, redshift, but again we are required to assume the speed of light has been constant since Creation. And so forth.

I can't offer you any piece of direct evidence for the big bang. Scientific theories depend on both deductive and inductive reasoning. Big bang, due to temporal limitations, is one of those theories that is heavily dependent on inductive evidence. This means there is no direct evidence for it, however, we can observe elements within a body of mutually exclusive facts and by induction, conclude that the Big bang is most probably true. It can however be falsified, and you are invited to falsify it by proving it has insurmountable flaws, and/or proposing a more descriptively compelling theory. Divine orchestration is unacceptable as a scientific answer because it lacks the requisite definitions to make it falsifiable.

As for CMB, do you have any other suggestions/ideas as to what kind of radiation it can be?

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

...I'd have to explain to you why the entire structure on which you stand, beginning from Newton, is all manifestly wrong.

Please begin to explain! I'm not paying lip service, I'm truly interested in your evidence for this claim. We might just be having a genius in our midst!

Modern physics is not simple.

It is a weird arcana of crazy mathematicians who draw daydreams in the air and produce equations as

evidence. This is what Science has been reduced to.

Who ever said modern physics is simple? You misunderstand the principle of Occam's razor. It doesn't state that all explanations must be simple, it states that "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" or, otherwise, "the simplest one should be selected". The simplest explanation is NOT always a simple explanation, it's just the simplest among competing hypotheses. Sure, the big bang theory comes with its body of assumptions, but like I mentioned in my first post, it has helped to explain many of the cosmological phenomena we observe, so we'll continue to carry out research to ascertain the other assumptions, refine the theory or come up with a more robust theory. It's certainly not the end all and be all of scientific theories!

gaelllic:


Secularism is a dream.

One worth pursuing.

Talk realpolitik.

Someone must make the rules.

The rules will come from Divine Revelation, or the will come from a man or a committee.

Since secularism is defined more appropriately as separation of state and religion, I now prefer to replace it with the generic term "Liberalism", which more accurately describes my dream of inclusiveness. The ultimate goal of liberalism is to keep rules to the barest minimum, so as to allow everyone espouse what ever values they believe in, without coercion from authority. Of course, with the caveat that they cause no harm to others in the process. Many, including myself, strongly dispute the existence of any such thing as "divine revelation". And if the bible/Quran is what you refer to as divine revelation, then I would argue that the divine revealer is most certainly out of touch with the present realities of mankind; and thus, isn't fit to make rules on my behalf. So I'll settle for a committee.

And what else will that man or committee enshrine, other than that which pleases himself/themselves?

Why do you think the Canada Supreme Court recently upheld bestiality as a constitutional right?

Okay, it is untrue that any Canadian court ruled that bestiality is a constitutional right. You should be wary of sensational headlines! Here's the RULING, for your record.

The ruling was specifically related to what acts constitutes bestiality, after a man made his pet dog lick peanut butter off the genitals of his stepdaughters. For this, the man was convicted of sexual harassment and bestiality. He appealed the case, and was subsequently acquitted of the bestiality charge; but is still serving 16 years in jail for sexual harassment. In the ruling, the court concluded that the constitution only identifies penetration as an act of bestiality, and further asserted that "Any expansion of criminal liability for this offense is within parliament’s exclusive domain". Basically saying that the constitution is outdated, but the court cannot make up rules that don't exist. This case has brought to the fore, a flaw in the Canadian constitution, and if you must know, there is a bill in the Canadian parliament that seeks to extend the definition of Bestiality, to correct the flaw; and it's called "Modernizing Animal Protection Act". You can click on the link to follow the reactions of Canadian Parliamentarians to the bill.
If anything, this is an exemplary testament as to the self-corrective nature of secular laws; that makes them superior to the anachronistic and immutable "divine laws"

You will always practise someone's religion.

This statement is patently false! Even supposing Canada actually legalised Bestiality, I am not obliged to practice it, so how am I following someone else's religion, assuming bestiality is another sanctioned act in the long list of absurdities promoted by religion?

stephenmorris:
lol so atheists are now cultists lol ayaf died

When can we start using oaths! Oh oh we should have our own dress code. Personally I will go with anything that has a naked Scarlet Johansson on it

alchemist13:

When can we start using oaths! Oh oh we should have our own dress code. Personally I will go with anything that has a naked Scarlet Johansson on it

@Seun Seriously, what's wrong with the word "nak3d"

AgentOfAllah:
Hi again.

Thanks for the lesson in definitions. However, I fail to see your point.

I can't offer you any piece of direct evidence for the big bang. Scientific theories depend on both deductive and inductive reasoning. Big bang, due to temporal limitations, is one of those theories that is heavily dependent on inductive evidence. This means there is no direct evidence for it, however, we can observe elements within a body of mutually exclusive facts and by induction, conclude that the Big bang is most probably true. It can however be falsified, and you are invited to falsify it by proving it has insurmountable flaws, and/or proposing a more descriptively compelling theory. Divine orchestration is unacceptable as a scientific answer because it lacks the requisite definitions to make it falsifiable.

As for CMB, do you have any other suggestions/ideas as to what kind of radiation it can be?

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

Please begin to explain! I'm not paying lip service, I'm truly interested in your evidence for this claim. We might just be having a genius in our midst!

Who ever said modern physics is simple? You misunderstand the principle of Occam's razor. It doesn't state that all explanations must be simple, it states that "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected" or, otherwise, "the simplest one should be selected". The simplest explanation is NOT always a simple explanation, it's just the simplest among competing hypotheses. Sure, the big bang theory comes with its body of assumptions, but like I mentioned in my first post, it has helped to explain many of the cosmological phenomena we observe, so we'll continue to carry out research to ascertain the other assumptions, refine the theory or come up with a more robust theory. It's certainly not the end all and be all of scientific theories!

This conflation of atheism with scientism is annoying . I did not need science to become an atheist and I will not need science to remain so.

peacesamuel94:


Now that you don't believe in evolution,how do you suppose the universe came to be?

When has it EVER been stated that Evolutionary Theory is an explanation for how the universe came to be?

AgentOfAllah:


Thanks for the lesson in definitions. However, I fail to see your point.

Oh, boy.

You may want to read this real slow.

I mean, really, really, slow.

Mathematics is the study of abstractions.

Physics is the study of actual physical objects.

Mathematical abstractions are proved by mathematical proofs i.e. equations written on pieces of paper.

Physical objects and phenomena are proved by physical experiments. i.e. actual actions in a lab.

One may not prove abstractions with physical objects.

One may not prove physical objects with abstractions.

Whether we apply inductive or deductive reasoning is irrelevant, as long as it is grounded in physical objects.

i.e A stone which makes sound when thrown in the dark, proves the presence of a wall ahead, even if the wall is not seen.

But our deduction is grounded upon the actual objects and actual phenomena i.e. the stone, and the sound.

There is no object, no interaction between objects and no phenomena that prove the Big Bang Theory. Period.

Therefore it is not Physics. Period.

It is, at best, a kind of inductive speculation.

This is my general philosophical opposition to your position.

In a subsequent post I will treat your points one by one, as well as obliterate any notion of a purely inductive

basis for the Big Bang.

AgentOfAllah:


As for CMB, do you have any other suggestions/ideas as to what kind of radiation it can be?

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

Preamble.

Inductive reasoning

is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

From the above, then, if the premise is false, the theory inducehall add notes for those who may not know the basics.

AgentOfAllah:
As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

This is an excellent place to begin.

A basic premise upon which the theory rests is the immutability of natural constants.

[ Note - Natural constants are certain phenomena assumed to be constant throughout nature and presumably throughout the history

of Creation. Examples are the speed of light in a vacuum, the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, something called

'alpha' (another mathematical value). These numerical values and expressions are the basis of all the magic maths of the Big Bangers.

These calculations rely on these values being immutable (unchangeable) and universal (true at every point in space).

Let's see if it is so. And let's see if some of these constants are accurate to begin with.

Remember, if they fail to hold, so does the theory.]

On light.

- As far back as the 17th century, Olaf Roemer (Denmark) observed decay in the speed of light over time.

- Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield (Stanford Research Institute, 1987), postulated speed of light decay.

- In 1987 Dr. V. S. Troitskii (Radio-physical Research Institute, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia), postulated that a huge decay
in the speed of light had occurred over time. See British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411
"Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

- In the February 18 1999 edition of Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an experiment in which the speed of light
was reduced to 17 meters per second. The experiment was conducted by the Lene V. Hau and an international team from Harvard and
Stanford Universities. They sent light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an nanokelvin temperature.


On alpha

Formally known as the 'Fine-Structure Constant'. Defined as

‘The strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electrons, muons) and
light (photons) interact.’


- “By doing so, they have found evidence that one of the constants of nature, which are never ever supposed to vary,
was smaller billions of years ago than it is today. The quantity that was measured, known as alpha, wasn’t smaller by much
- less than 1 part in 100,000 - but the finding has sent tremors through physics and astronomy."



- ". . . although changes in the fine-structure constant [alpha] do not affect the expansion of the universe significantly, the expansion
affects alpha. . . . About six billion years ago dark energy took over and accelerated the expansion, making it difficult for all
physical influences to propagate through space. So alpha became nearly constant again.”



These examples are by no means exhaustive. I'm trying to keep this short.

You have not heard about this because Big Bangers do a good job keeping it out of mainstream media

and because you have been trained to be pliant and incurious, because the information is out there.

In a subsequent post I shall treat CMB simultaneously with Big Bang Theory's total failure to pass the

test of Occam's Razor. The two subjects go together quite well, as you shall see.

gaelllic:


Preamble.

Inductive reasoning

is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

From the above, then, if the premise is false, the theory inducehall add notes for those who may not know the basics.



This is an excellent place to begin.

A basic premise upon which the theory rests is the immutability of natural constants.

[ Note - Natural constants are certain phenomena assumed to be constant throughout nature and presumably throughout the history

of Creation. Examples are the speed of light in a vacuum, the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, something called

'alpha' (another mathematical value). These numerical values and expressions are the basis of all the magic maths of the Big Bangers.

These calculations rely on these values being immutable (unchangeable) and universal (true at every point in space).

Let's see if it is so. And let's see if some of these constants are accurate to begin with.

Remember, if they fail to hold, so does the theory.]

On light.

- As far back as the 17th century, Olaf Roemer (Denmark) observed decay in the speed of light over time.

- Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield (Stanford Research Institute, 1987), postulated speed of light decay.

- In 1987 Dr. V. S. Troitskii (Radio-physical Research Institute, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia), postulated that a huge decay
in the speed of light had occurred over time. See British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411
"Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

- In the February 18 1999 edition of Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an experiment in which the speed of light
was reduced to 17 meters per second. The experiment was conducted by the Lene V. Hau and an international team from Harvard and
Stanford Universities. They sent light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an nanokelvin temperature.


On alpha

Formally known as the 'fine-structure constant'. Defined as

‘The strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electrons, muons) and
light (photons) interact.’

- NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology, USA)

- “By doing so, they have found evidence that one of the constants of nature, which are never ever supposed to vary,
was smaller billions of years ago than it is today. The quantity that was measured, known as alpha, wasn’t smaller by much
- less than 1 part in 100,000 - but the finding has sent tremors through physics and astronomy."

- Science News, Vol. 160, October 6, 2001

- ". . . although changes in the fine-structure constant [alpha] do not affect the expansion of the universe significantly, the expansion
affects alpha. . . . About six billion years ago dark energy took over and accelerated the expansion, making it difficult for all
physical influences to propagate through space. So alpha became nearly constant again.”

- Scientific American, June 2005.
Inconstant Constants - Do the inner workings of nature change with time?

These examples are by no means exhaustive. I'm trying to keep this short.

You have not heard about this because Big Bangers do a good job keeping it out of mainstream media

and because you have been trained to be pliant and incurious, because the information is out there.

In a subsequent post I shall treat CMB simultaneously with Big Bang Theory's total failure to pass the

test of Occam's Razor. The two subjects go together quite well, as you shall see.

Am aware that this your reply is not directed at me.

I had asked you previously in my reply to you, on your claim that the bible is literarily true.

That you should justify the legendary event, concocted in Noah's ark story.

You theists will make a better debate on religion, if only you base your argument on the claims of your Bible, with rational and empirical facts.

Than doing a copy and paste of some works (most of which failed scientific standards) of scientists who are sympathetic to religious beliefs.

AgentOfAllah:
You should be wary of sensational headlines!

For pity's sake.

AgentOfAllah:
...the court concluded that the constitution only identifies penetration as an act of bestiality...

Therefore. Any non-penetrative bestial act is firmly within each Canadian's Constitutional rights. QED.

As for the bill 'protecting animals' we'll see how that goes. You should know the drill by now. People will gradually be

'sensitized' to bestiality, and it will become a 'human rights' campaign. Films portraying the practice are already receiving positive

reviews at prestigious festivals.

It is already legal in Texas, Japan, Finland, Hawaii among others. It is officially banned in Germany, but that country's main bestiality

website has 1.2 million members. 1.2 million. On a single subject.

You need a telescope to see what I see.

This is the result of your 'superior law'.

AgentOfAllah:
This statement is patently false!

Easy there, Social Justice Warrior.

If one believes that homosexuality is to be despised, and is forced to 'marry' a homosexual couple who believe

their 'union' is good, is he not coerced into practising another's beliefs?

If one believes 'that male and female He created them, and is compelled by law by to call men women and

vice versa, is he not coerced into endorsing contrary beliefs to his own?

AgentOfAllah:
...I now prefer to replace it with the generic term "Liberalism"...

Humanism is Socialism-lite.

And Liberalism is Satanism-lite.

AgentOfAllah:
The ultimate goal of liberalism is ... to allow everyone espouse
what ever values they believe in

'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.'

- Aleister Crowley.
'The Book of the Law'

You will always practise someone's religion.

AgentOfAllah:
So I'll settle for a committee.

You'll live to regret that.

Oh, and yes, the more liberal societies are the more laws they eventually need. USA has the world's largest prison population.

Keep dreaming.

gaelllic:

Oh, and yes, the more liberal societies are the more laws they eventually need. USA has the world's largest prison population.

Keep dreaming.

Ah... The USA is certainly not amongst the more liberal societies.

akintom:


I hope you will keep it civil too.



If you believe that the bible is literarily true, then you must believe the account of Noah and the ark.

Pls consider the following carefully:

Noah's ark measurements;
Length - 134cm
Width - 22.25m
Height - 13.1m
= 3,9089.7sqm

3,000,000 species on earth (low estimate by scientists) ×2 of each one + Noah's family of 4 = 6,000,004.
3,9089.7÷ 6,000,004 = 0.0065 = 6.5sqmm of space to roam.

This 6.5sqmm is like a dot of your pen that can't be visible to your naked eyes.

So, how TRUE is the Noah's ark? Since no physical animal can be contained in a space less than a dot of pen?

Now, if you believe that the bible is LITERARILY TRUE, how do you explain this?

300 x 50 x 30 cubits =

140 × 23 × 13.5 metres =

43,500 m³ (1.54 million cubic feet).

I believe that's equivalent to 522 standard American livestock cars ( for train transportation)

each of which holds up to 240 sheep.


Species belong to larger biological groups called 'genera' ( singular - 'genus')

This is similar to the meaning of 'kinds'.

E.g. Horses, donkeys, zebras and giraffes all have a common equine ancestor.

Coyotes, jackals, wolves, and all dogs have a common canine ancestor.

Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it

was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood.

Remember also that there was no need to take sea creatures (obviously).

Redo the maths and you'll find it fits - with more than enough room for food and drinking water.

akintom:


You theists will make a better debate on religion, if only you base your argument on the claims of your Bible, with rational and empirical facts.

Than doing a copy and paste of some works (most of which failed scientific standards) of scientists who are sympathetic to religious beliefs.

I made reference to Nature and Scientific American

Nature

is a British interdisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869. It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 38.1, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.



Scientific American

(informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 170 years. It is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States.

akintom:

On your big bang question, i advise that you contact AgentofAllah.
But if you want to engage me, outside astral(?) physics, be my guest.

You really need to stay in your lane.

I fear you may not be properly equipped for conversation at this level.

This is similar to the meaning of 'kinds'.

okay..with mathematics as you prefer ...prove to us how 8 people gave this present world populace,,
2)how the mutations/information necessary for the diversity of species which we see in the ''kinds'' today...a genetic model of this is required..
3)where's your evidence in the Bible that animals have been rapidly morphing from one species into another,,as the bible suggests animals have remained the same-------The description of animals given in the bible corresponds with modern day species E.g Job 39(ostriches) and other animals etc
4)For your version of “evolution” to be true animals would have to have evolved from a few “kinds” to millions of species in less than
3000 years,and this ought to have been greatly observed by humans with contemporary eye witness accounts..e.g the elephant takes a decade for sex.ual maturity to set in and gives birth to a couple of offsprings...so its ancestor would have been morphing virtually every generation...any records?
5)Extra biblical records prove that animals have remained ''unchanged'' for long...
E.g the sarcophagus of Prince Thutmose of egypt's cat of the 18th dynasty(1543-1292 BCE)
shows the cat---No different from modern day..there are many others like mummified animals dating older than this and recorded cases of domesticated animals..but i decided to use the one which is verified and the date:static...
The chronological date for your flood is 2348 BCE
so do you believe this speedy evolution of about 30,000 kinds is possible is less than a thousand years?
Cc gaelllic

gaelllic:

And thus shalt thou make it: The length
of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty
cubits.
- Genesis 6: 15 (Douay-Rheims)

300 x 50 x 30 cubits =

140 × 23 × 13.5 metres =

43,500 m³ (1.54 million cubic feet).

I believe that's equivalent to 522 standard American livestock cars ( for train transportation)

each of which holds up to 240 sheep.

They and every beast according to its kind,...
Went...
into the ark,

-Genesis 7: 14 & 15

Species belong to larger biological groups called 'genera' ( singular - 'genus')

This is similar to the meaning of 'kinds'.

E.g. Horses, donkeys, zebras and giraffes all have a common equine ancestor.

Coyotes, jackals, wolves, and all dogs have a common canine ancestor.

Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it

was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood.

Remember also that there was no need to take sea creatures (obviously).

Redo the maths and you'll find it fits - with more than enough room for food and drinking water.

Funny that you believe animals can split with such diversity from a common ancestor in a few thousand years but cannot accept evolution.

gaelllic:

And thus shalt thou make it: The length
of the ark shall be three hundred cubits: the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty
cubits.
- Genesis 6: 15 (Douay-Rheims)

300 x 50 x 30 cubits =

140 × 23 × 13.5 metres =

43,500 m³ (1.54 million cubic feet).

I believe that's equivalent to 522 standard American livestock cars ( for train transportation)

each of which holds up to 240 sheep.

They and every beast according to its kind,...
Went...
into the ark,

-Genesis 7: 14 & 15

Species belong to larger biological groups called 'genera' ( singular - 'genus')

This is similar to the meaning of 'kinds'.

E.g. Horses, donkeys, zebras and giraffes all have a common equine ancestor.

Coyotes, jackals, wolves, and all dogs have a common canine ancestor.

Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it

was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood.

Remember also that there was no need to take sea creatures (obviously).

Redo the maths and you'll find it fits - with more than enough room for food and drinking water.

Thanks for your reply.

I will appreciate that we stay focused on this line. By your response, you have further confirmed to me that you take the events in the bible to be literarily true.

"Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it
was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood" - you.


From the above statement from you, it does appear you believe in evolution by natural selection. But the problem here now with your position, is that bible rejects evolution in its entirety.

Pls clarify this, before i proceed with you.

Thanks.

gaelllic:


Preamble.

Inductive reasoning

is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion. Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior.

From the above, then, if the premise is false, the theory inducehall add notes for those who may not know the basics.



This is an excellent place to begin.

A basic premise upon which the theory rests is the immutability of natural constants.

[ Note - Natural constants are certain phenomena assumed to be constant throughout nature and presumably throughout the history

of Creation. Examples are the speed of light in a vacuum, the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, something called

'alpha' (another mathematical value). These numerical values and expressions are the basis of all the magic maths of the Big Bangers.

These calculations rely on these values being immutable (unchangeable) and universal (true at every point in space).

Let's see if it is so. And let's see if some of these constants are accurate to begin with.

Remember, if they fail to hold, so does the theory.]

On light.

- As far back as the 17th century, Olaf Roemer (Denmark) observed decay in the speed of light over time.

- Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield (Stanford Research Institute, 1987), postulated speed of light decay.

- In 1987 Dr. V. S. Troitskii (Radio-physical Research Institute, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia), postulated that a huge decay
in the speed of light had occurred over time. See British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411
"Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

- In the February 18 1999 edition of Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an experiment in which the speed of light
was reduced to 17 meters per second. The experiment was conducted by the Lene V. Hau and an international team from Harvard and
Stanford Universities. They sent light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an nanokelvin temperature.


On alpha

Formally known as the 'Fine-Structure Constant'. Defined as

‘The strength of the electromagnetic force that governs how electrically charged elementary particles (e.g., electrons, muons) and
light (photons) interact.’

- NIST (National Institute for Standards and Technology, USA)

- “By doing so, they have found evidence that one of the constants of nature, which are never ever supposed to vary,
was smaller billions of years ago than it is today. The quantity that was measured, known as alpha, wasn’t smaller by much
- less than 1 part in 100,000 - but the finding has sent tremors through physics and astronomy."

- Science News, Vol. 160, October 6, 2001

- ". . . although changes in the fine-structure constant [alpha] do not affect the expansion of the universe significantly, the expansion
affects alpha. . . . About six billion years ago dark energy took over and accelerated the expansion, making it difficult for all
physical influences to propagate through space. So alpha became nearly constant again.”

- Scientific American, June 2005.
Inconstant Constants - Do the inner workings of nature change with time?

These examples are by no means exhaustive. I'm trying to keep this short.

You have not heard about this because Big Bangers do a good job keeping it out of mainstream media

and because you have been trained to be pliant and incurious, because the information is out there.

In a subsequent post I shall treat CMB simultaneously with Big Bang Theory's total failure to pass the

test of Occam's Razor. The two subjects go together quite well, as you shall see.

I may not be an expert in Physics myself, but I trust AgentOfAllah to come out and obliterate this soon enough. I've gone through his posts and realised his arguments and inputs are typically astute and lautitious.

Well, (in his voice)**** What do I know?

alchemist13:
Ah... The USA is certainly not amongst the more liberal societies.

It's a pity he doesn't know that.

gaelllic:

Mathematics is the study of abstractions.

Physics is the study of actual physical objects.

Mathematical abstractions are proved by mathematical proofs i.e. equations written on pieces of paper.

Physical objects and phenomena are proved by physical experiments. i.e. actual actions in a lab.

One may not prove abstractions with physical objects.

One may not prove physical objects with abstractions.

Whether we apply inductive or deductive reasoning is irrelevant, as long as it is grounded in physical objects.

i.e A stone which makes sound when thrown in the dark, proves the presence of a wall ahead, even if the wall is not seen.

But our deduction is grounded upon the actual objects and actual phenomena i.e. the stone, and the sound.

There is no object, no interaction between objects and no phenomena that prove the Big Bang Theory. Period.

Therefore it is not Physics. Period.

It is, at best, a kind of inductive speculation.

This is my general philosophical opposition to your position.

In a subsequent post I will treat your points one by one, as well as obliterate any notion of a purely inductive

basis for the Big Bang.

To be honest, I don't know what your philosophical musings on these disciplines has got to do with the falsifiability of the big bang theory. I really did not get your point when you went about your definition exercise of 'Falsifiability', and this hasn't made your point any clearer.

For the avoidance of doubt however, your philosophical position - if it could be called that - is far detached from reality. You seem unaware that mathematics can be used to make accurate predictions about physical phenomena. You do realise that the Higgs boson was mathematically predicted before it was finally experimentally discovered in 2010?

I encourage you to spend some time re-formulating your philosophical conclusion about the relationship between mathematics and physics. While you are at that, think about what role mathematics played in our discovery of the invisible parts of EM waves, why wireless communication works and how it is possible for us both to be able to communicate through electromagnetic waves (outside of the visible spectrum). If you find difficulty coming to a better conclusion than your naive and, frankly, preposterous attempt at compartmentalizing mathematics and physics, I'll spell it out:

Mathematics is the language with which physical phenomena can be precisely communicated, tested and predicted.

If you still don't grasp the importance of this relationship, then I don't wish to pursue this line of conversation any further.

akintom:

From the above statement from you, it does appear you believe in evolution by natural selection. But the problem here now with your position, is that bible rejects evolution in its entirety.

Pls clarify this, before i proceed with you.

Thanks.

Not the way you think.

Here is the difference.

Evolutionists

believe that lifeless chemical compounds organized themselves into living creatures. These creatures then replicate.

There are mistakes (mutations) in the replication process. These mistakes may coincidentally confer survival advantage.

The survivors replicate. The mistake persists as a desirable trait.

Creationists

believe that God made creatures and made them able to reproduce 'after their own kind. These creatures possess

within themselves the information to produce variety[b] within that kind[/b]. Demonstrated as follows:

Humans have 20 687 protein-coding base pairs.

Humans have an average heterozygosity of 6.7%. (This means 67 out of every thousand gene pairs 67 have different

alleles.)

Thus gives us 1340 heterozygous pair locations, called loci (singular- locus).

Thus every human can produce a vast number of different sperm or egg cells.

2¹³⁴⁰in fact.

That's Creationist variation. An unfolding of inherent complexity, inbuilt by God, and restricted within kinds.

Evolutionism teaches a series of mistakes and lucky breaks, completely unrestricted between kinds (fish evolve into

apes, apes into people, etc.)

gaelllic:


Not the way you think.

Here is the difference.

Evolutionists

believe that lifeless chemical compounds organized themselves into living creatures. These creatures then replicate.

There are mistakes (mutations) in the replication process. These mistakes may coincidentally confer survival advantage.

The survivors replicate. The mistake persists as a desirable trait.

Creationists

believe that God made creatures and made them able to reproduce 'after their own kind. These creatures possess

within themselves the information to produce variety[b] within that kind[/b]. Demonstrated as follows:

Humans have 20 687 protein-coding base pairs.

Humans have an average heterozygosity of 6.7%. (This means 67 out of every thousand gene pairs 67 have different

alleles.)

Thus gives us 1340 heterozygous pair locations, called loci (singular- locus).

Thus every human can produce a vast number of different sperm or egg cells.

2¹³⁴⁰in fact.

That's Creationist variation. An unfolding of inherent complexity, inbuilt by God, and restricted within kinds.

Evolutionism teaches a series of mistakes and lucky breaks, completely unrestricted between kinds (fish evolve into

apes, apes into people, etc.)

"Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood"

The above are your exact words. Do you mean that the modest 3 million species we have today EVOLVED from the species preserved in Noah's ark?

Are you by any means saying, for example, that one specie of a flying bird, evolved into many species of flying birds?

AgentOfAllah:

Mathematics is the language with which physical phenomena can be precisely communicated, tested and predicted.

If you still don't grasp the importance of this relationship, then I don't wish to pursue this line of conversation any further.

Hahaha. Really?

AgentOfAllah:

You may be more intelligent and insightful than I am. I really don't know you, but I can give you one guarantee:...you'll win a Nobel prize on top of that. This is for sure!
Let me just say on the side: If such a theory is cooking up in your head, I wanna work with you so we can both develop it. I have a decent physics background, and I might be able to help with the mathematical formalisms too! It would be an achievement of a lifetime if I am identified as the guy who co-authored the groundbreaking work that upstaged and rendered obsolete, the Big Bang theory!
.

A page ago we were going to win the Nobel Prize together.... truly the mob is a fickle beast.

Why? Because I told you to read slow? Don't be girlish.

(And let this be a lesson to all. They may smile at you today and squint tomorrow, so just speak your mind and leave it.)

AgentOfAllah:
...then I don't wish to pursue this line of conversation any further.

Your decision to appear was not my concern. You'll find me of similar attitude towards your decision to depart.

My concern is:

AgentOfAllah:

As for light, do you have any example(s) in nature that suggest its speed has ever been altered in time?

1. You asked for evidence of lightspeed variation.

2. I provided it, from mainstream publications.

3. You suddenly decided you didn't 'wish to pursue this line of conversation any further'.

So, off you go.

Take homework -

https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249

The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee
-Alexander Unzicker

_{Dr. Alexander Unzicker is a German theoretical physicist. He has degrees in both physics and law and a PhD in neuroscience from Munich University. Unzicker published papers on Einstein's unified theory and on a cosmology with a variable speed of light. His current field of research is Mach's principle and tests of gravity. Unzicker became known for his popular science book....the book was awarded “Science Book of the Year” by leading science journalists in Germany.}

gaelllic:

On light.

- As far back as the 17th century, Olaf Roemer (Denmark) observed decay in the speed of light over time.

Ridiculous! While Roemer laid the ground work for the determination of the speed of light, he never actually calculated it himself, so how you got the idea that he observed the light's decay is curious. Please do your research!

- Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield (Stanford Research Institute, 1987), postulated speed of light decay.

After your epistle about how mathematics and physics are mutually exclusive fields, you now consider esoteric mathematical abstractions to be proof that light decays? Stunning volte face!! Anyway, this crap has been widely discredited, even by a creationist website! I do not wish to waste my time on it.

- In 1987 Dr. V. S. Troitskii (Radio-physical Research Institute, Nizhniy Novgorod, Russia), postulated that a huge decay
in the speed of light had occurred over time. See British journal Astrophysics and Space Science 139 (1987) 389-411
"Physical Constants and Evolution of the Universe."

This is actually a very interesting paper. Long, but interesting. I tried to attach it, but unfortunately, I couldn't attach it here.

It concludes thus:

"Three models of the Universe may be developed on the basis of the hypothesis of the light speed variation:
(1) the static model with the light speed decrease (2) the compressed one with the light speed decrease, and (3) the broadening one with increase or decrease of the light speed."

I love this paper because it presents a hypothetical alternative model to our current view of the universe. However, it has not "postulated that a huge decay in speed of light had occurred over time" as is claimed by gaellic. This paper hypothesises as its initial premise, a situation where the speed of light is considered variable, and then comes up with a number of possible states of the universe which will satisfy this hypothesis. Although, one of the more stringent requirements for the resultant universes in this work is the author's admission that there must synchronously exist, the "evolution of a number of other fundamental constants with the variation of the light speed". This, in conjunction of course, with the fact that the weight of evidence is against such a claim, makes it a tenuous proposition, since it requires a more improbable assumption than the current model. Remember Occam's razor? Discounting the attempts before the 1900s due to their imprecision, Numerous experiments have been carried out to determine the speed of light, and there is no evidence that it has changed!

- In the February 18 1999 edition of Nature, a scientific paper was published that detailed an experiment in which the speed of light
was reduced to 17 meters per second. The experiment was conducted by the Lene V. Hau and an international team from Harvard and
Stanford Universities. They sent light through a sodium vapor that had been cooled to an nanokelvin temperature.

Okay, it is ridiculous to use this as proof that the speed of light has decayed over time. It also calls to question, your physics credentials if you don't know that the phase velocity of light can change in a material medium (read on refractive index)! I don't think you read the paper that was referenced. A Bose-Einstein condensate is a large group of atoms that are acting in phase so that they effectively become a single massive atom (call it super atom). L.V. Hau cooled her gas of Sodium to a few nK below T_c, the critical temperature before a gas of atoms start to behave as Bose-Einstein condensate. At this state, the super atom is unable to effectively dissipate absorbed energy, which causes its constituent atoms to absorb and re-emit the light (as opposed to being transparent to it), causing it to slow down. A German group has even achieved something more impressive! They stopped light for 1 minute. Here, the super atom is even more opaque and less absorptive, so this causes light pulse to be trapped inside of it (as if to be surrounded by a spherical mirror). The reason they are however unable to trap light indefinitely is the same reason absolute 0K is an unattainable theoretical value, a perfect mirror will need atoms to be perfectly still, and this is impossible! Hence, the light energy will always dissipate, even if this takes a thousand years. Note that when the light is eventually released, it continues to travel with its original speed unaltered. The fundamental constant 'c' is speed of light in vacuum, not in a material medium. Speed of light in material media is neither fundamental, nor is it constant!

akintom:




"Remember that these events took place at the beginning of the world, and so it was these ancestors of your 3 000 000 species which were rescued from the flood"

The above are your exact words. Do you mean that the modest 3 million species we have today EVOLVED from the species preserved in Noah's ark?

Are you by any means saying, for example, that one specie of a flying bird, evolved into many species of flying birds?

Perhaps one original pair into many.

Perhaps a few original pairs into many more.

The point is it is an unfolding of[b] inherent complexity[/b] and not a sequence of errors.

Think on how just 8 character spaces...

Just 8...

Contain enough inherent complexity to compose all the motor vehicle number plates in a country.

Maybe that'll help.

gaelllic:

Therefore. Any non-penetrative bestial act is firmly within each Canadian's Constitutional rights. QED.

How do I put this? Bestiality is illegal in Canada...what you disagree with is the definition of bestiality.

As for the bill 'protecting animals' we'll see how that goes. You should know the drill by now. People will gradually be

'sensitized' to bestiality, and it will become a 'human rights' campaign. Films portraying the practice are already receiving positive

reviews at prestigious festivals.

So your conclusion about how the Canadian parliament will react to the law expanding the definition of bestiality is summed up by 'films portraying the act' and what not? WOW! Did you even read the Canadian parliament link I shared? You don't need to draw spurious conclusions when you can get the position of the parliamentarians directly. Go read it!

It is already legal in Texas, Japan, Finland, Hawaii among others. It is officially banned in Germany, but that country's main bestiality

website has 1.2 million members. 1.2 million. On a single subject.

So

You need a telescope to see what I see.

This probably explains your poor grasp of astronomy. You've been pointing your telescope at the wrong things! I'll pass

If one believes that homosexuality is to be despised, and is forced to 'marry' a homosexual couple who believe

their 'union' is good, is he not coerced into practising another's beliefs?

Yes he is coerced, and if this coercion is coming from the state, that state isn't secular.

If one believes 'that male and female He created them, and is compelled by law by to call men women and

vice versa, is he not coerced into endorsing contrary beliefs to his own?

I don't understand this question.

Humanism is Socialism-lite.

And Liberalism is Satanism-lite.

This doesn't deserve a response

You will always practise someone's religion.

You can try to make me!

You'll live to regret that.

So far I haven't. I'm willing to take a chance

Oh, and yes, the more liberal societies are the more laws they eventually need.

This is an illogical statement. By definition, the less liberal society is, the more laws are needed to define the stringent boundaries of their social transactions. A country where homosexuality is illegal needs a law to explicitly state that. The opposite isn't true!

USA has the world's largest prison population.

The US isn't the most liberal society, however, I can draw examples from its history that contradict your claim. (a) The DADT was repealed as a law, (b) Slavery was abolished, and all laws concerning the issue were rendered obsolete, (c) Segregation laws were abolished. There are hundreds more example to show that liberalism leads to reduced interference from the state.
As you can see, in the given examples, as the US became more liberal about a subject, laws were abolished to reflect this new position. How can you then claim that a liberal society requires more laws?

Keep dreaming.

I will!

gaelllic:


Perhaps one original pair into many.

Perhaps a few original pairs into many more.

The point is it is an unfolding of[b] inherent complexity[/b] and not a sequence of errors.

Think on how just 8 character spaces...

Just 8...

Contain enough inherent complexity to compose all the motor vehicle number plates in a country.

Maybe that'll help.

I don't know what you will now call this your theory of "Perhaps one original pair into many", if it's not evolution by natural selection.

So we don't get bugged down with this, evolution is not my focus, but the literal veracity of the Bible.

Still on the Noah's ark story. Your response to the impossibility of size of the ark and it containing all animal species, is irrelevant and false, in the very context of the Bible.

Here are my questions to you :

1. If you read through Genesis 1&2, the story of creation, your Bible says EVERYTHING WAS CREATED (living and non living things). So, in the light of these, your new theory of "Perhaps one original pair into many", holds no water.

2. Your Bible claimed that rain fell for 40 days and 40 nights. This claim is Scientifically IMPOSSIBLE. You can do a read up on basic principles behind rainfall.

3. For the period of the flood, what did the carnivorous animals feed on? If they did feed, then the "representative pair" would have been lost.

4. Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

* please note the word ALL in the above verse. So your thoughts about preservation of animals in the sea doesn't hold (everything not in the ark perished).

* Noah couldn't have pair into the ark microorganisms, and since everything not in the ark was destroyed, how do you account for the microorganisms existing today.


Do you still claim the bible is literarily true?

gaelllic:

My concern is:



1. You asked for evidence of lightspeed variation.

2. I provided it, from mainstream publications.

3. You suddenly decided you didn't 'wish to pursue this line of conversation any further'.

So, off you go.

Take homework -

https://www.amazon.com/Higgs-Fake-Particle-Physicists-Committee/dp/1492176249

The Higgs Fake: How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee
-Alexander Unzicker

_{Dr. Alexander Unzicker is a German theoretical physicist. He has degrees in both physics and law and a PhD in neuroscience from Munich University. Unzicker published papers on Einstein's unified theory and on a cosmology with a variable speed of light. His current field of research is Mach's principle and tests of gravity. Unzicker became known for his popular science book....the book was awarded “Science Book of the Year” by leading science journalists in Germany.}

Yes, I didn't want to pursue the line of conversation that sought to detach physics from mathematics, and I still don't want to! It'll be a waste of my time.

This book looks interesting, however. I shall purchase and read it.