speed of light

Originally posted by KellyJay
Have I shot at you the way you have at me over and over again? I
do not think I'm doing anything at all wrong in what or how I disagree
with you. As I pointed out to you before, you it seems are having a
discussion with me, I on the other hand found myself talking to more
than a few people, granted some were just being a$$es, but they
cannot help thems ime insulting you, and
see if you let a discussion point get by you from time to time.
Kelly

Kelly,

I appriciate that sometimes I may have not been as objective as I should have been. Also, I understand your point of how you have indeed had many people insult you (or your views) and that must make it very difficult to have a proper debate. For my part in that I am genuinly sorry and I hope we can move forward with a clean sheet.

However, it is not just "from time to time" that you let points pass - you do not have a coherence argument for your point of view. You have not shown that you understand the subject in enougth detail to form a reasoned position.

Let us take the issue of radioactive dating as an example. Your position seems to be that you do not trust it because of the very long timescales involved. You have a valid point - you are saying that when extrapolating results such a long way you need to be very careful. In this part of your argument you are correct, however, your argument stopped there. You have not provided evidence for your view.

Let us calmly think about your view. Radioactive dating works by measuring the radiactivity from a sample and extropolating backwards to find when the sample orginated (in principle). You are saying that because of the long times involved this is not reliable, but you do not say why.

We have made pure samples of radioactive material and observed that they do decay in the way that we think. This is equivelent to going back in time to when the sample was just formed at measuring it's activity then. So the only logical place that there can be a problem with the method is if radioactivity behaved differently in the past (as we have removed the varible of concentration of remaining radioactive isotopes as a factor).

The only way radioactivity could have worked differently in the past is if the laws of nature that govern it have changed. This amounts to saying that various constants of nature have changed. Again, you have a very valid point here, and real research is being done to find out if these constants have changed. BUT so far we have measured them to be constant within experimental error - so if they have changed it is by such a small amount that it makes very little difference and radioactive dating is still reliable.

If we later find that radioactivity has changed, we can factor that into the method by changing the maths to take it into acount and we will get more accurate dating.

In short, you are entitled to your opinion, but with your right to an opinion comes the responsibility to reason out your view in a logical way - otherwise we have a situation where anyone can say anything no matter what the consequenses.

Again, I am sorry for any distress I caused, I should not have become so subjectice towards you. I should instead just have calmly pointed out the flaws in your claim without getting personal.

I have now reasoned a logical argument for why radioactive dating is reliable. If you choose to you can try and present some evidence for your point of view. I would also like to stress once more that you have asked valid questions. However, you have not taken the answers to these questions into acount. The basic premise of your argument has some grounds, but they fall away when the subject is considered logically.

Note: I have listened to your points about projecting results back such a long way. I have taken them into account and reasoned why they are good questions to ask, but then used an understanding of the subject to show why they are not a basis to doubt radioactive dating. This is an example of why it is important to reason your argument, not just state your argurment. Saying "going back such a long time is unrelably because we are using assumptions" is a valid statement, but you must then show an understanding of the consequences of these assumption and decide if they are justifiable.

Matt

edit: I also meant to respond to your point about my definition of time.

My definition of time was more then simply using it in a sentence. I introduced the concept of space-time - how you can "stress" both time and space and change them. Space-time is a very complicated subject and, with no dissrespect intended, you will not be able to discuss it in any meaningful way unless you reasearch it a great deal more. The greatest physisists in the world do not fully understand it and there is active reasearch looking for gravity waves and Higgs Boson particals to try and understand it better. But again I wonder why it is a relevent question for this thread. For the purposes of this discussion we need only define time in such away that allows us to measure it's passage and define certain moments in time - i.e: a coordinate system.

That is what time is - time is simply a dimention which can be represented with coordinates.

Any discussion about time and space being "stressed" is not appriopiate because you do not have an understanding of these processes, you simply lack the ability. It would be like us trying to have a discussion in a different language that we did not understand.

I do not say this to be unkind, space-time and relativity is a VERY complicated subject that is difficult to understand. I have an advantage because I am a physisist - if I had not studied the subject in detail over a number of years I would be in the same position as you.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm sure you feel what you said was perfectly adequate, I don't think
so, and here is why. If we were to apply how you defined it to real life
it would go like this, at the corner of Main and Elm at 6PM, you have
location and a time. From that I'm suppose to understand how time
it defined? Just because of how you described location where, and
time when sumptions, but it is a house of assumptions when it comes
to dating items that old.
Kelly

…
My complaint against them is there is nothing but assumptions telling
us that those readings are correct if they go billions or millions of
years. That is NOT saying they are not correct, but be real about it, we
have no means to test that against items we know are that old, we
can test them against items that we assume are that old, because of
other assumptions, but it is a house of assumptions when it comes
to dating items that old….

You question the validity of science because scientific theory is often partly based on assumptions (and always also based on evidence else it isn’t science!). But those “assumptions” are “qualified assumptions” which means they have been carefully designed and chosen to be assumptions that most people find hard to refute. In most cases, those “assumptions” also have some evidence that either proves or at least gives strong reason to believe that those assumptions are correct. Those assumptions are needed to make an interpretation of the evidence and, without those assumptions, it would often be impossible to make any interpretation.

If you compare that with religion, religion is generally not based on evidence nor “qualified assumptions”. Religious belief is generally based on “faith” that means that religion is based on totally unqualified assumptions.

On the bases of that comparison, we should always regard science as a more reliable source of information than religion.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
My complaint against them is there is nothing but assumptions telling
us that those readings are correct if they go billions or millions of
years. That is NOT saying they are not correct, but be real about it, we
have no means to test that against items we know are that old, we
can test them against items that we assume are that old, be ...[text shortened]... parison, we should always regard science as a more reliable source of information than religion.

Yes, you have summed up my point in a much better way then I put it :-)

Assumptions on which science is based are not the wild assumptions that people who do not understand sometimes think.

They assumptions have been derived from understanding the system involved and have usual been tested in some way to find out if they are valid.

The specific case of radioactive dating involves the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is understood properly and happened in the past the same way as in the present.

Anyone who understands this subject will know that this is a valid assumption.

But I can see why people who do not understand may wrongly think that it is not.

Originally posted by MattP
Kelly,

I appriciate that sometimes I may have not been as objective as I should have been. Also, I understand your point of how you have indeed had many people insult you (or your views) and that must make it very difficult to have a proper debate. For my part in that I am genuinly sorry and I hope we can move forward with a clean sheet.

However, it is ...[text shortened]... d the subject in detail over a number of years I would be in the same position as you.

MattP, you get what you get from me and from everyone else here,
stop turning it personal! I am not here as a proper debate team, I'm
not here to PROVE a point, I come here from time to time as my life
allows to make some chess moves, and if I have more time I'll pop in
here and why I don't know subject myself to you and others who feel
the need to batter me personally, because I do not agree with you, or
because I don't write a proper paper to your liking. If I could spend a
lot of time here taking each persons post and treat it as if it were a
examination I'm sure the standards of my replies would improve;
however, that is not going to happen.

I'm going to come here as time allows read as many as possible, the
points that standout to me first are typically those I address. It will
never get better than that unless I go on vacation or retire. If I'm
glossing over a POINT you want me to hit hard, you have to let me
know what is important to you, because it is not always going to
stand out to me, and the other way around, for goodness sake I'm
not a mind reader! Stop assuming I always grab and know what it is
you are trying to get me to address as I plow through 20 or more
posts here in this place. I really do get tired of hearing "Oh you are
trying to dodge my points" as if I care one way or another about
your points!

I do not have an issue saying I'm wrong, that is part of the process,
and I’d much rather be shown I'm wrong than run off thinking I'm
right about something I'm not. I also will not admit I'm wrong until
that time I'm sure about it, simply disagreeing with you is not enough
for me to say I'm wrong, or disagreeing with you and others, it isn't a
numbers game on truth, people in mass can be wrong about a lot of
things, having the numbers or people in power or places of it do not
make them 'right' about anything or wrong about anything.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…
My complaint against them is there is nothing but assumptions telling
us that those readings are correct if they go billions or millions of
years. That is NOT saying they are not correct, but be real about it, we
have no means to test that against items we know are that old, we
can test them against items that we assume are that old, be ...[text shortened]... parison, we should always regard science as a more reliable source of information than religion.

[/b]I'm telling you I'm happy when I can test something see the results
make an assumption it means X, and if I can verify X by actually
seeing it occur the way I thought or said it was going to proves the
test is correct. If I can never do that, that is actually see X the way
I think it is, I really don't care to call my tests anything more than
an assumption based on whatever it is that got me there, in
addition to that even under the best of conditions, if we miss anything
we can still be wrong. I do not call that a knock on science, but on
man's abilities to get it right each and every time.

Where I go with religion is I know I'll never be able to prove God to
you or anyone else, and I have been here years and if you went
through each and ever post I have ever written you'd see I have never
made the attempt either to prove God. Only God can do that!
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Hehe, a good one! 😵
If you can say wathever you like, then this is totally okay!

Absolutely. And sonhouse has proven to be a pompous bullying ass many times in the past, and has the perfect right to continue showing it. I had thought you were a cut above.

Originally posted by MattP
Kelly,

I appriciate that sometimes I may have not been as objective as I should have been. Also, I understand your point of how you have indeed had many people insult you (or your views) and that must make it very difficult to have a proper debate. For my part in that I am genuinly sorry and I hope we can move forward with a clean sheet.

However, it is d the subject in detail over a number of years I would be in the same position as you.

"We have made pure samples of radioactive material and observed that they do decay in the way that we think. This is equivelent to going back in time to when the sample was just formed at measuring it's activity then. So the only logical place that there can be a problem with the method is if radioactivity behaved differently in the past (as we have removed the varible of concentration of remaining radioactive isotopes as a factor). "

I understand that we have been measuring them, my question is for
how long have we been doing that, and in that window of time we see
the same things correct no suprises!? So we assume over X amount
of time certain things remain true as they are during the window of
time we have been looking at this stuff, that is a huge assumption,
and because we make it assumptions are now scattered about in
many other places too! With those assumptions that sort of suggests
large amounts of time it is thought that there is a lot of evidence to
prove the point of age, could be correct never said it couldn't be, but
it is still built upon assumptions nonetheless, that has not changed.
Kelly

Originally posted by MattP
hehe, I think Sonhouse and Fabian have highlighted the flaw in your argument.

On a serious note, whilst people do have the right to form whatever opinion they want - if they are discussing their opinion it is fair to want them to give a reasoned logic for it.

Where do you draw the line? Religious people sometimes prey on vulnerable people, spouting the k ...[text shortened]... ple. There is a fine line which people like KJ must be very careful they do not cross.

Thought shall not lie is not a law of the land, and the Constitution is what I refer tio regarding my inalienable rights. Your reference, I do not know.
There is no flaw--they have every right to call people names, same as you.
I do not draw a line at all. Opinions are like a$$holes--everybody has one and (almost) no one want to hear it. If anyone wants to sound off, God bless 'em--they don't have to back anything up with facts. And most of us learned a long time ago that a word has not been invented that can cause physical harm when uttered by any of the aforementioned a$$holes.
Sincere belief without proof hurts no one. If actions happen as a result of that belief harms someone, that's a whole different situation--that's why we have laws.
Morally wrong?? I did not think we were getting into that nebulous region. I stick with the US Constitution when it comes to what we have the right to do. We have the right to do things that may not be morally right---so what?
I believe I've covered your post. At least you have a reasoned argument. Son and Fab, eh...not so much. Too bad--I kinda liked that Swedish dude.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well then. In my opinion, you are an ashole

too bad spelling, nor punctuation, is your strong suit.

Originally posted by MattP
Kelly,

I appriciate that sometimes I may have not been as objective as I should have been. Also, I understand your point of how you have indeed had many people insult you (or your views) and that must make it very difficult to have a proper debate. For my part in that I am genuinly sorry and I hope we can move forward with a clean sheet.

However, it is ...[text shortened]... d the subject in detail over a number of years I would be in the same position as you.

"The only way radioactivity could have worked differently in the past is if the laws of nature that govern it have..."

How do you know that? The way radioactivity works is how it works, our
understanding of that will change as we view it, if we are wrong about
various and sundry parts of it, that will not be because the laws of
nature have changed, but our understanding of it got better.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm telling you I'm happy when I can test something see the results
make an assumption it means X, and if I can verify X by actually
seeing it occur the way I thought or said it was going to proves the
test is correct. If I can never do that, that is actually see X the way
I think it is, I really don't care to call my tests anything more than
an as ...[text shortened]... you'd see I have never
made the attempt either to prove God. Only God can do that!
Kelly[/b]

…I'm telling you I'm happy when I can test something see the results
make an assumption it means X, and if I can verify X by actually
seeing it occur the way I thought or said it was going to proves the
test is correct….

I am not sure what you mean here: what do you mean by “it was going to proves the
TEST is correct” in the above? A “test” isn’t something that can be “correct”! -at least in the sense that it can’t be “true or false” -right? So, I assume you mean it is “correct” in some other sense, in which case, in what sense do you mean? -I mean, only a “theory” or a “belief” or a “proposition” can be true or false but a “test” is just something that is done to find out something -so in what sense can a “test” be true or false? -I assume this is not what you meant so please correct me.

I assume what you mean by “X” in the above is “a particular THEORY X” -right?

…If I can never do that, that is actually see X the way
I think it is, …

Now you confuse me farther: what do you mean by “X” in the above? If what you mean by “X” in the above sentence is “a particular THEORY X” then what do you mean by “see X the way
I think it is”? -I mean, in what sense can you “see” a theory “the way you think it is“? -you make it sound to me that you imply that you can observe a theory like you can observe an observable solid object in order to “see it the way you think it is“.

…I really don't care to call my tests anything more than
an assumption based on …

How can “some tests” be “an assumption “? A “test” is just something that is done to find out something -so in what sense can “some tests” be “an assumption “? -I mean, a “test” is a type of physical action, not an abstract thought! And, “an assumption “ is a type of abstract thought, not an action! -right? Again, I assume this is not what you mean so please correct me.

…. I have never made the attempt either to prove God. Only God can do that!…

So why has this all-powerful “god” failed to prove that he exists to me despite being “all-powerful” ?

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
too bad spelling, nor punctuation, is your strong suit.

I tried the real spelling but the stupid censor got me.
You say sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me but you react as if someone hit you with an ugly stick. You need to lighten up, you take things way too seriously. Just because I think Christianity and Islam a corrupt set of religions does not mean you are corrupt. My ire is with the leaders.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I tried the real spelling but the stupid censor got me.
You say sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me but you react as if someone hit you with an ugly stick. You need to lighten up, you take things way too seriously. Just because I think Christianity and Islam a corrupt set of religions does not mean you are corrupt. My ire is with the leaders.

You didn't say "the leaders" were a$$holes; you reserved that epithet for me. So don't tell me to "lighten up". Mind your own.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The only way radioactivity could have worked differently in the past is if the laws of nature that govern it have..."

How do you know that? The way radioactivity works is how it works, our
understanding of that will change as we view it, if we are wrong about
various and sundry parts of it, that will not be because the laws of
nature have changed, but our understanding of it got better.
Kelly

Thank you for responding to my points in a reasoned way, some real progress has been made with the last few posts.

I am afraid that we get back to my old point about any change in understanding just improving our accuracy of measurements. Radiactiviy is very well understood and if we do discover new things about it they must conform to the existing obervations so they will simply be very small changes which apply only in the cases which we cannot observe at the moment.

Unlike theories of old, which were coined before modern scientific methods, there are not huge revolutions which entirly change our thinking. In the past, when theories were not based on evidence it was common for them to be overturned (like the world being flat etc...), but now that obervations are used to base theories on, when we can observe new apects of a system it simply alters the finer points of a theory in such a way that it is still consistent with the original observations.

Also, scientists are very open and are always careful to properly qualify their statements - this means that scientists are always awear that they may need to modify a theory. This means that scientists do not make absolute statments and claim to have 100% certainty. Unfortunately, some people exploit this ballanced, reasoned aspect of science by demanding a 100% certainty and when no scientists claim they are 100% correct they use that as evidence to dispute the validity of the whole theory. For example, CERN recently had a problem with people claiming it could create black holes that would destroy the Earth. Whilst there was no reason to think this, because scientists are always open minded they refused to rule it out 100%, as there could very well be effects we dont know about. This resulted in a law suit, where some people (i forget who) claimed that CERN was a danger, and used the fact that CERN did not rule out danger 100% as evidence that there was danger. I have not explained this very well but I hope you see my point.

I can understand your point, and I do not think I will be able to change your mind - just as you will not change my mind on this issue.

I have reasoned my case and there is nothing more to add to it.

I have one final thing for you to think about. I do not know your religious beliefs, but I think you are a Christian from posts I have seen in other threads (please correct me if I am wrong). Do you set the same high standards of proof for your religious beliefs that you do for scientific theories?

This is not meant as a dig, I am just interested to know why someone who clearly has a keen sense of inquiry, and who has trouble accepting assumptions which are based on reasoned logic and observed evidence could by religious at all. How do you justify Christian religious beliefs if you cannot accept tested assumptions which give reproducable results?

Note: This post is not at all meant in a hostile way, I am actually genuinly interested. It fasinates me that otherwise reasonable poeple, who require reasoned evidence to accept most things, so often do not apply the same conditions to religious matters. Also, as I do not know your beliefs I have made some assumptions (mainly that you are religious and you are a Christian), I apologise if these are incorrect.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Thought shall not lie is not a law of the land, and the Constitution is what I refer tio regarding my inalienable rights. Your reference, I do not know.
There is no flaw--they have every right to call people names, same as you.
I do not draw a line at all. Opinions are like a$$holes--everybody has one and (almost) no one want to hear it. If anyone wan asoned argument. Son and Fab, eh...not so much. Too bad--I kinda liked that Swedish dude.

It is interesting that you seem to hold the US constitution above basic morals. You seem to think that the US constitution is flawless and that any rights give to people in the US constitiution are fundamental to human freedome. This is not the case.

Here in the UK we do not have the right to own a gun, but that does not mean that we are oppressed.

I think we are actually more in agreement that it seemed at first. I too think that people are entitled to hold any opinion that they want, and I also appriciate that there is a very large difference between holding an opinion and acting on an opinion.

However, it is important that all opinions that are expressed be subject to reasoned debate, as this means that the wrong ones are seen to be wrong through reasoned argument.

So what I object to is when people give an oppinion without qualifying or justifying it. I acknowledge that people have the right to express any opinion they want - but other people must point out flaws otherwise the system collapses and we get the ridiculas situations that I described in my previous post, where extreemist views are allowed to circulate unchecked and cause havoc.

To go back to a point I made earlier in this post, it is odd that you hold the US constitution above fundamental morals. You seem to imply that if something is not against the law it is OK. In the past in some cultures (saxon england for example), it was prefectly legal to have a blood fued with someone and kill them if they had wronged you. If the law said it was ok to obuse or mistreat people from certain ethnic origins do you think it is acceptable to do so? Do you think that if you have the legal right to do something it is automatically an OK think to do? I do not - I think that all things must be reasoned out in a logical way.

edit: to summerise, I think we are in agreement about people's right to hold and express opinions, any opinions that they like, with or without evidence. But where we seem to differ is I place a lot more importance on debating opinions in a reasonable way - whereas you seem to think that a blind belief is enougth and all opinions are equal and should be considered equally valid. I think (and ironically this me expressing an opinion) that reasoned opinions that have been arrived at through logical thought processes based on observed evidence are more valid that those that are not. I think that it is fine to dismiss incorrect opinions, but that we must also point out the flaws in them so as to prevent a return to the dark ages.