Intelligent Design is a self evident truth

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

As far as physical matter goes, stuff made of atoms, within the observable universe, yes. It is far better than any vacuum that can be created in a laboratory. Yet there is a lot more to "empty space" than that.

It is unlikely there is such a thing as genuinely "empty space" and a perfect vacuum (space absent of all matter) is unlikely to be a vacuum in the "absolute" sense. It contains something, by virtue of occupying volume. Is space "something"? According to certain quantum physicists "empty space" has weight (and therefore mass). I get the feeling that you refer to a "philosophical" vacuum which seems another word for "absolutely nothing", something that doesn't and cannot exist and then give it whatever properties you like (though I could be wrong). This is different to the "nothing" from which some physicists say our universe appeared.

A bit loathe to ask, but it might be worth defining the properties of your claimed vacuum that supposedly exists outside of our universe. If we exist within it, is it still a vacuum? Can you tell us in simple parlance what it is?

- Within our universe you will never find a absolute vacuum. You will never be able to create it either. There is noway you can build a chaimber strong enough to withstand the force. Something to do with presure.

- There is no way science will ever admitt to the existence of a absolute vacuum. Because they will never observe that kind of space.

- A space that is empty "Absolute empty" is absolute neutral, and will never have any weight. There is no way you can have a acurate scale that is more neutral than the absolute.

- A space that is absolute empty can not have what ever properties i like it to have. It can only have one property. And that is being absolute neutral.

You can give it time. But its time would be; absolute neutral "a absolute constant". The same thing.

-A absolute empty space is the same as nothing. There is no finite, particles,matter,time, temprature or anything that we know of. But it still exist. And it must exists, because it is the only space that can have always existed and that always will exist.

The only thing we know that can change is our finite universe. Because it is the only thing we can mesure and observe. You will never agree to anything of what i am saying. Because you are not trained to think. You are trained to fallow AUTHORITY.

GargIndia
reply to post by AngryCymraeg

 

What do you believe in? Forget the politicians.

Belief is useless. I don't believe anything without good evidence, and by that point I don't need to believe. I know.

Cogito, Ergo Sum

GargIndia
It is very easy to draw wrong conclusions by assuming 'time' to be a variable commodity.

The experiment that you just quoted is a glowing example of that.

There are no great assumptions required here. There are also no experiments that falsify special relativity. I picked this type of experiment because it seems easier for dummies like myself to get the basic gist of.

All you are doing is making claims. Not that you shouldn't have an opinion, after all, who really knows? But it would generally be put in a way that could make it obvious this is simply your belief. It is a fascinating subject, and alternate ideas can be very interesting, less so when people start claiming all sorts of designers as "self evident" facts and scientific theories that disagree with them as false, just because.

You are looking at muons from a point of reference of a place on earth. These muons have originated at different places and travelled different distances to earth. The energy state of each muon is different from others. What you are measuring is that fact. A particle in motion is affected by conditions on the road - like electro-magnetism that exists throughout galaxy and affects every travelling particle.

Nonsense. It is known where and how these particles come about and it is explained in the experiment how this is taken into account. The original experiment goes into greater detail. These particle shouldn't reach earth but they do. Time dilation/ length contraction accounts for this quite accurately within the experimental parameters.

What is your alternate hypothesis and what do you have to support it? Do you think these particles travelling faster than scientist think? Do you disagree with decay times? Something else? Why?

You are not measuring time-dilation on muon as you have no way of measuring that from point of reference of a single point on earth.

Nonsense. That seems to be the point of the whole thing and precisely what they are doing.

The radiation is an atomic phenomenon. It is very logical that natural radio-activity will be affected by energy state of atom. Again this is not an example of time-dilation.

You seem to have left out the part that either backs up your assertion, or makes it obvious this is "in your personal opinion".

You are missing a very important point - when you run an experiment, your inputs and outputs must be controlled and well defined. Show me those experiments.

A source for original experiment showing time dilation is afaik by B.Rossi and D. Hall in 1941. These are reasonably well known experiments.

I would ask for your sources but am still waiting for the "simple" procedure that you claim debunks atomic clocks.

If you are going to claim the falsification of well supported scientific theories as a fact, it would be customary to back that up with something.

edit on 21-1-2014 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: the heck of it.

You are getting into arguments rather than backing your stuff with sound logic.

I am not impressed by your "well supported scientific theories".

In your experiment:

The input is "cosmic particles", something coming from space. Is something coming from space a 'controlled input'? How.

Then how are you measuring energy of the incoming particle? Explain the process 'scientifically' from that experiment.

First let us focus on these two aspects. Then we shall talk about the experiment's other aspects and your points in your post.

The particle physicists are going in circles. There is a lot of circular logic in this field. However the political factors keep the truth from coming out. It is unfortunate but true. It takes a lot of equipment and money to prove it wrong though. The scientific establishment of my country is very weak due to lack of leadership and infighting. The countries where I expected leadership to come from (Japan, China) are very secretive when such matters are concerned, as particle physics is the cutting edge of Physics with many practical applications.

GargIndia
You are getting into arguments rather than backing your stuff with sound logic.

I doubt that.

I am not impressed by your "well supported scientific theories".

Irrelevant (please see your sentence in the quote above this one).

In your experiment:

The input is "cosmic particles", something coming from space. Is something coming from space a 'controlled input'? How.

No, the input is not "cosmic particles coming from space". That is misleading and inaccurate.

Then how are you measuring energy of the incoming particle? Explain the process 'scientifically' from that experiment.

First let us focus on these two aspects. Then we shall talk about the experiment's other aspects and your points in your post.

If you don't understand how this and countless similar experiments are conducted, why would you claim they reach wrong conclusions?

Time to cut the bs and back your claims. You claimed you had an alternate explanation (that doesn't involve the effects of special relativity).

Lets hear it.

The particle physicists are going in circles. There is a lot of circular logic in this field. However the political factors keep the truth from coming out. It is unfortunate but true. It takes a lot of equipment and money to prove it wrong though. The scientific establishment of my country is very weak due to lack of leadership and infighting. The countries where I expected leadership to come from (Japan, China) are very secretive when such matters are concerned, as particle physics is the cutting edge of Physics with many practical applications.

Yeah, convincing so far...

reply to post by GargIndia


ps. also still waiting for the method you claimed, the one that shows us that atomic clocks are inaccurate.

spy66
- Within our universe you will never find a absolute vacuum.

Unlikely, yes.

- There is no way science will ever admitt to the existence of a absolute vacuum. Because they will never observe that kind of space.

That would be fair enough in that instance though, wouldn't it?

- A space that is empty "Absolute empty" is absolute neutral, and will never have any weight. There is no way you can have a acurate scale that is more neutral than the absolute.

- A space that is absolute empty can not have what ever properties i like it to have. It can only have one property. And that is being absolute neutral.

You can give it time. But its time would be; absolute neutral "a absolute constant". The same thing.

-A absolute empty space is the same as nothing. There is no finite, particles,matter,time, temprature or anything that we know of. But it still exist. And it must exists, because it is the only space that can have always existed and that always will exist.

That is sounding very much like the definition of an absolute "doesn't exist" and is more philosophy than science. Which is where it runs into even bigger problems.

The only thing we know that can change is our finite universe. Because it is the only thing we can mesure and observe. You will never agree to anything of what i am saying.

Far more than what you might have the capacity to believe. The part where it's claimed as an unimpeachable fact, with nothing to support it other than your imagination, is problematic though.

Because you are not trained to think.

Vacuum it is then...lol.

You are trained to fallow AUTHORITY.

Possibly. Yet there's nothing wrong with my nostrils and this has a familiar waft to it. The logical fallacies (in the last two quotes) might satisfy emotionally, but they do your claims no real favours.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


My method will come too.

First we look at your experiment.

But before we begin, let us establish some ground rules.

1. From now on, you and me will talk about the experiment that you posted and nothing else.
2. You will answer each question logically and in scientific language, so shall I.

If these rules are acceptable to you, I go further. Otherwise there is no point taking this discussion.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Now assume you are the one formulating this experiment, and the experiment is not yet published.

How to do you formulate your experiment:

1. What is your input(s)?
2. What is your output(s)?
3. What are your assumptions?
4. What is the accuracy of your method of measurement?

Please answer the above for this experiment?

GargIndia
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

My method will come too.

First we look at your experiment.

But before we begin, let us establish some ground rules.

1. From now on, you and me will talk about the experiment that you posted and nothing else.
2. You will answer each question logically and in scientific language, so shall I.

If these rules are acceptable to you, I go further. Otherwise there is no point taking this discussion.

I'm guessing you put that line is as a get-out clause to answering the question he's asked you to answer several times now.
Since that answer forms the basis of your argument I suggest to you that you need to answer it before this goes any further.
Else there really IS no point in continuing is there?

reply to post by GargIndia


Let me remind you of the question you are responding to (and also continually avoiding). As many scientists feel muons in this instance are subject to relativistic effects, as per a multitude of experiments (as in the simple example), yet you don't believe in SR...

what is your alternate explanation?

Somehow you have construed that to mean "Please pick apart any procedural/experimental details that suits you of this random muon experiment I got off the net (simply to provide an example) so that we can debate psuedo mysticism/science. I would also like you to impose your own idiotic protocols and rules for discussion, thus completely avoiding the point".

It is unlikely I will ever wish to do this. It will probably happen after I go to church and then the creationist convention.

You also seem to feel I owe you something. We don't start from the point that your idea is equal simply because you make empty claims to that effect. I don't have to defend SR, I don't have to defend other peoples muon experiments. As I am not making claims, the burden is not mine to prove anything to you. That is not how it works, especially regarding...

what is your alternate explanation?

If you want to pick apart an experiment, go for it. It might be better to find a more detailed one with references and sources wherever necessary. Then you won't have to continually ask questions or try to initiate what will probably be a never ending obfuscation. If necessary you can contact the physicist and ask for clarification. You could probably start a thread on it. Who knows, someone might even bother reading it. Once again...

what is your alternate explanation?

The possible answers to this seem limited. "I don't have one" is acceptable (and likely). "I have one but don't want to explain it" would be an obvious lie, but at least we could realise that and move on. "Yes I do have one, it goes like this..." would also be acceptable. Once again, to this or any other muon experiment that supports SR...

what is your alternate explanation ?

For those who might have an interest, here is a wiki...

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GargIndia


Am also still waiting your promised experiment that discredits atomic clocks. In fact I can see that others have actually given up waiting for it.

As a stickler for protocol and "scientifical" rules (imaginary or otherwise), no doubt you would have details of your own experiment and the results that lead you to such a conclusion. Surely you wouldn't have just dreamed it up all pulled it out of your a...?

Can you back your claim, can we see it?

reply to post by Pardon?


"I'm guessing you put that line is as a get-out clause to answering the question he's asked you to answer several times now."

No. I am staying with this discussion if a "scientific discussion" is taken up in a "scientific way".

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


"Somehow you have construed that to mean "Please pick apart any procedural/experimental details that suits you of this random muon experiment I got off the net (simply to provide an example) so that we can debate psuedo mysticism/science. I would also like you to impose your own idiotic protocols and rules for discussion, thus completely avoiding the point". "

"this random muon experiment I got off the net"

Do you yourself understand this experiment? If so, you can easily provide the detail I am asking you.
The discussion on this experiment requires very good knowledge and lab experience. Do you have that?

Since you do not understand the experiment you posted yourself, how would you understand the experiment that I would post?

I have not "picked apart any procedural/experimental details' yet. It may depend on how well you do.

What is this "pseudo mysticism". Interesting word? I tell you what? You are no scientist. You have no understanding of science yourself. You are a cut/paste artist with a lot of resources given by your employers. Your only skill is spinning words.

reply to post by GargIndia


We can be anything we want on the internet.

I can link you with sources explaining the logical fallacies and obfuscation techniques used by creationists and pseudo scientists, if you like. It is quite relevant.

It appears your answer is "I do, but don't feel like explaining it". Please see my thoughts on that...

"I have one but don't want to explain it" would be an obvious lie, but at least we could realise that and move on.

ps. I did hold some interest as to what an alternate view might consist of, at one point.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


"We can be anything we want on the internet."

It sums up everything about you.

Just go read my posts. I have said everything about myself in my posts. Who I am. Why I post?

Go search my posts on ATS.

Honest people with good intentions do not need to hide.

You are ashamed of who you are and what you are trying to be. Not me.

Cogito, Ergo Sum

4x

what is your alternate explanation?

I don't agree with most of what GargIndia posts but I also have my doubts about the results of those atomic clock experiments.

I just thought that I would point out that one doesn't need to have an alternate explanation to question the veracity of a claim. If something is proven wrong without providing an alternate explanation, it is OK to place a question mark as place holder until such an explanation is available.

GargIndia
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

 

"We can be anything we want on the internet."

It sums up everything about you.

Just go read my posts. I have said everything about myself in my posts. Who I am. Why I post?

Go search my posts on ATS.

Honest people with good intentions do not need to hide.

You are ashamed of who you are and what you are trying to be. Not me.

I have made no claims.

I don't care who you are.

I don't care why you post.

I also don't care about your education or qualifications.

You could be Einstein, Newton and Mother Theresa rolled into one, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. Odd that you wouldn't understand this.

I asked you to back specific claims of "science" that you made and experiments promised.

You failed to do this.

It's that simple.

Instead you wish to engage in some sort of slanging match instead.

Doesn't quite cut it.

daskakik

Cogito, Ergo Sum

4x

what is your alternate explanation?

I don't agree with most of what GargIndia posts but I also have my doubts about the results of those atomic clock experiments.

I just thought that I would point out that one doesn't need to have an alternate explanation to question the veracity of a claim. If something is proven wrong without providing an alternate explanation, it is OK to place a question mark as place holder until such an explanation is available.

I don't disagree at all daskakik. In that instance it would simply require..."I don't have an alternate explanation". Seems easy enough.

The atomic clock is a bit different. There were claims made and a supposed experiment promised. Repeated requests yielded nothing other than insult in the end. At which point discussion is obviously a bit pointless.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I meant to post something along the same line in reply to Pardon?'s post about a get out clause. I figured that it was an admission that the proposed experiment was not going to happen but that the atomic clock experiments could still be discussed. Well, maybe not.

GargIndia
reply to post by Pardon?

 

"I'm guessing you put that line is as a get-out clause to answering the question he's asked you to answer several times now."

No. I am staying with this discussion if a "scientific discussion" is taken up in a "scientific way".

And we're all waiting with bated breath for you to actually supply some science rather than utilising the link below to form the content of all of your replies...
Random Phrase Generator

Stop dodging.