09 Jun 08
Originally posted by KellyJaySome clown here even suggested only those with some level of education are qualified to even question conclusions or views here, which I completely reject out of hand as well.
I do reject some things people say true, that is not rejecting science
it is simply a rejection of what some people say. I do not think my
disagreement of some of your beliefs/thoughts about reality or
anyone else' is a disagreement with science only with your/their
views on reality.
Conclusions that you have reached are not always going to be the
s ...[text shortened]... even question conclusions or views here, which I completely reject
out of hand as well.
Kelly
I can see the posters point though. It is important to question even fundamental asusmptions, and it is impossible to learn without questioning. However, that said, there are a huge number of people who post on here who do not have even the most modest of knowledge on certain subjects, yet mistakenly think that their point of view is somehow equal to someone who has studied that field extensively for many years. For example, knightmeister is a prime example. Now, I must say before I start, personally I like knightmeister BUT, his incessant attempts to redefine the concept of time, which has been studied comprehensively by physicists over the last hundred years or so flies in the face of everything which is known. That is not a helpful discussion to have, especially since he is immune to correction. In essence, he has stopped in any kind of meaningful debate and is proselytizing.
I do reject some things people say true, that is not rejecting science
it is simply a rejection of what some people say. I do not think my
disagreement of some of your beliefs/thoughts about reality or
anyone else' is a disagreement with science only with your/their
views on reality.
However, it is important to realise that science promotes certain facets of a worldview, for example naturalism, parsimony, etc.
Let's take an example. You have, on many occassions here, rejected the notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take. Yet this view is a scientific one, based upon stacks of evidence - I even provided you a 1998 review paper by Zhang which detailed some of the data. When the data comes back with 4600,000,000 years old as the answer, there are only a small number of viable logical conclusions one can reach. namely;
1) There was some mistake in running the sample. Run it again.
2) The machine is poorly caibrated. Calibrate the machine with known standards.
3) There are problems with the sample, or sampling technique. COllect more, independant samples.
4) The theory is wrong. If this is true it should be evident in other predictions made by the theory.
5) The data is valid and should be accepted.
1-3 have been shown to be invalid excuses since independent measurements conducted by independent labs get the same result - they cannot all be wrong by exactly the same amount.
4 is not a viable explanation since the theory (theory of relativity) is very well supported by evidence, and has not been shown to be substantively wrong.
This leaves only 5 as the only viable answer. I cannot see any other possibilities.
So, you see, I find it hard to understand how you could call this a "difference in interpretation", when denial of this requires the abandonment of logic.
09 Jun 08
There are many people who don't accept any of the current scientific measuring instruments and, based on much anecdotal evidence (from different labs coming up with wildly different ages all the way down to clocking trees at 100 mph). I believe the earth is about 4.5 byo, but I can see why one would be suspicious.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydFirst, trees don't move.
There are many people who don't accept any of the current scientific measuring instruments and, based on much anecdotal evidence (from different labs coming up with wildly different ages all the way down to clocking trees at 100 mph). I believe the earth is about 4.5 byo, but I can see why one would be suspicious.
Second, the degree of difference between different estimates using isochron dating is about 2%. This is hardly what anyone except the craziest biblical fundy would call "wildly different". I can send you pdf's of papers to back up my point, should you so wish.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzFirst---my point exactly.
First, trees don't move.
Second, the degree of difference between different estimates using isochron dating is about 2%. This is hardly what anyone except the craziest biblical fundy would call "wildly different". I can send you pdf's of papers to back up my point, should you so wish.
Second--that would be acceptable, except that I've explained on other threads my total disdain and ignorance of computers. I wouldn't know a pdf's if it/they were growing on my anus. So, I'll need more info before obtaining them. Hint: If I have to do ANYTHING at all in order to get said pdfs thingies to appear on my screen magically, I pass. No visiting websites, answering questions, picking a user name...for this guy.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydTo get said pdf is very simple, I will contact you by PM, we can exchange email addresses, and I will email you a copy of the article (it's only available on subscription journals, which I get through my institution).
First---my point exactly.
Second--that would be acceptable, except that I've explained on other threads my total disdain and ignorance of computers. I wouldn't know a pdf's if it/they were growing on my anus. So, I'll need more info before obtaining them. Hint: If I have to do ANYTHING at all in order to get said pdfs thingies to appear on my screen ...[text shortened]... lly, I pass. No visiting websites, answering questions, picking a user name...for this guy.
Your computer will require Adobe Acrobat or similar, although it probably already has it.
09 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnz"You have, on many occassions here, rejected the notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take.”
[b]Some clown here even suggested only those with some level of education are qualified to even question conclusions or views here, which I completely reject out of hand as well.
I can see the posters point though. It is important to question even fundamental asusmptions, and it is impossible to learn without questioning. However, that said, th ...[text shortened]... his a "difference in interpretation", when denial of this requires the abandonment of logic.[/b]
That is false, I reject someone calling the earth billions or years old a
fact, I do not know how old it is. I reject the notion that anyone here
can claim they know without a doubt how old it is, I can be wrong about
what I think is true; I don't claim I know, I claim I have a belief. That
has always been my point in any and all discussions with respect to the
age of the earth.
"Calibrate the machine with known standards." Standards like my
glasses may only be good for certain ranges, I do not think anyone
has a good standard for billions/millions of years, they may project
the time out, but that does not mean it is an accurate representation
of reality.
You post requires more of an answer, but I do not have the time at
the moment. I'll get back to this later today or tomorrow.
Kelly
10 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay1) No-one claims with infallible knowledge the age of the earth. That's why we have statistics, and use (+/-) in our estimates.
"You have, on many occassions here, rejected the notion that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, give or take.”
That is false, I reject someone calling the earth billions or years old a
fact, I do not know how old it is. I reject the notion that anyone here
can claim they know without a doubt how old it is, I can be wrong about
what I think is true; I o not have the time at
the moment. I'll get back to this later today or tomorrow.
Kelly
2) We have very reliable standards. Nuclear materials decay with precisely known kinetics. We can make chemicals up to be whatever standards we require.
3) Even were our standards not good, isochron dating, using 3 methods to "triangulate" the age would circumvent this problem. Unsurprisingly, it gives the same age as every other method. But then, you have the Zhang paper, look it up for yourself.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by scottishinnzOK. I know what e-mail is, but not PM (mail) ? And how would I know if my computer has an Adobe on it?
To get said pdf is very simple, I will contact you by PM, we can exchange email addresses, and I will email you a copy of the article (it's only available on subscription journals, which I get through my institution).
Your computer will require Adobe Acrobat or similar, although it probably already has it.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasI myself believe in
Seems that we do not agree about if it is possible to go by the speed of light, or not.
Therefore I'd like to start a poll:
Do you think...
(1) It is not possible to go by the speed of light.
(2) It is possible to go by the speed of light.
(3) It is possible to go faster than light.
(4) It will never be possible to go faster than light, ever. ...[text shortened]...
Vote for one or more alternatives above. Motivate if you want, don't if you don't want to.
(1) It is not possible to go by the speed of light. And thereover, I might add.
and (6) In the future we will have technology to go anywhere in the universe without going faster than light (for example with the aid of using paralell dimensions, folding space, or other methods).
For me, the Einsteinian theory stands, and will stand forever.
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by crazyfoxI"m sure this point's already been made, but in an effort to prove relativity, scientists loaded a Navy atomic clock into a plane, and flew the clock at altitude for an extended period of time. The clock on the plane was in fact found to record time more slowly than another atomic clock on the ground. I have a book for you - The Elegant Universe by Kevin (Brian?) Greene.
I read where if one was to travel close to the speed of light you would age slower then on earth. For example: you got on a spaceship and went at 90% the speed pf light for about 5 years and then come back to earth. You been gone for about 10 years but on earth you been gone for about (just say about) 1000 years. If this make sense.
What ya’ll thoughts on this?
10 Jun 08
Originally posted by sasquatch672You accept that the clock kept different time because....?
I"m sure this point's already been made, but in an effort to prove relativity, scientists loaded a Navy atomic clock into a plane, and flew the clock at altitude for an extended period of time. The clock on the plane was in fact found to record time more slowly than another atomic clock on the ground. I have a book for you - The Elegant Universe by Kevin (Brian?) Greene.
Kelly
11 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayAs has already been said, time dilation, lorentze contraction and other relativistic effects have been observed and measured many times. They are used every day in particle accelerators to accuratly steer particle beams. They are even used in cathode ray TVs to steer the electrons.
You accept that the clock kept different time because....?
Kelly
Another example include cosmic radiation which penetrates the atmosphere much further then it should because time runs slower for the particle so it does not decay as fast (from our point of view) as it should allowing it to travel more distance.
Another example is GPS, the satalights orbit with a different velocity to the Earth's surface so time dilation needs to be accounted for to get accurate positions.
There are many many other examples of relativistic effects happening in everyday events. You ridiculas "You accept that because?" idea shows you do not know much about the subject and are ignorent of (or choose to ignore) the evidence.