| 24 June 2003 at 03.01.02 ZuluTime
|
Posted by Alcyonian [203.97.2.243 - netcache2-acld.auckland.clix.net.nz] on 24 June 2003 at 03.01.02 ZuluTime:
In Reply to: When Theists Try to Warp Science - Email Discussion posted by Alcyonian on 23 June 2003 at 14.51.23 ZuluTime:
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Re:
Tannar.
1. I don't cut and paste. If I make a citation, working and studying in the field of sciences, referencing is all important, even if it is from an acquaintance, as plagiarism is taken very seriously.
2. OUR dimension is all we KNOW. You seem to be of the inclination that you can MAKE AN ASSERTION WITHOUT HAVING TO PROVE IT. And Newton attempted the hypothesis if time prior to Einstein. Einstein applied it to General Relativity and then changed the structure of how physics percieves time by adding inertia, and the mathematical equation being time dilation.
3. You seem to have lost the concept of what dimension means in physics (remember, that's where you are trying to apply it too). So now, I will use a citation, as it seems my simplistic definitions seem to be hitting a brick wall. According to Jim Adson (2002, 19 November, Kaluza , Klein and the Grand Unified Theory, "The scientific definition is much simpler than the fictional concepts that we are used to. A dimension is simply an extent or mode in which something can move. Our universe appears to be four-dimensional. The three spatial dimensions, usually referred to as length, height, and depth, and denoted by the Cartesian coordinates x, y, and z, are the spatial dimensions that we are used to. We can move whichever direction we want in the spatial dimensions. The fourth dimension is time. Many people find it difficult to imagine time as a dimension because we don’t have the same freedom of movement that we do with the spatial dimensions, but that may be a consequence of the way we perceive the universe, rather than the universe itself. Time is a dimension because it is a necessary part of any coordinate system we use to describe the location of an object. If you want to know the location of a planet, not only do you have to know its position in space (its x, y, and z Cartesian coordinates) you also have to know when it will be there (its time coordinate). Special and General Relativity established a direct connection between motion in the three spatial dimensions and time. Four pieces of information are needed to define the position of an object, thus a four dimensional universe. "
4. You seem to be hooked onto "mass/time" so how do you solidify this statement by making it synonymous?!?!?! You are making up physical properties from physical variables, but again NOT substantiating your equation. Soliloquy does not cut it.
5. You have NO proof of the Christian God by making these variables and statements. NONE. Again, you are making assertions, stating it proof without providing proof in correlation to Physics. You are utilising physics, and adding a factor that stands OUTSIDE of physics. In fact, you are making IT stand OUTSIDE of physics, so your variables are non-applicable anyway.
6. Extra dimensions have been suggested for DECADES. I have had the pleasure of reading some works. An interesting one is Rupert Sheldrakes, Morphic Resonance. He was one I looked into while completing a thesis in physics a few years back. But still, it's merely a suggestion. Again, I will quote Jim Adson (2002, 19 November, Kaluza, Klein and the Grand Unified Theory), "Extra dimensions have been a mainstay of science fiction for years. Many authors have explored the practical, logical, and comical implications of a universe with more dimensions than we are used to, but this use of artistic license has led to some strange ideas of what makes a dimension. It seems that the common science fiction definition involves something akin a parallel universe, a world similar to the one in which we live, but different in minute or sometimes antithetical ways. Although this type of extra dimension can be an entertaining plot device, it has no bearing on real life. Thankfully modern physics will, once again, save us from the mundane world we perceive. Extra dimensions are a hot topic on the forefront of theoretical physics, and their mathematical implications can be quite stunning."
Alcyonian.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brad Dickey
To: Alcyonian
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
After some thought last night, let me addend the following thought.
In the description of Einsteins thoughts on time, it's important to note that the cut you posted below was merely an explanation of how Time would affect OUR dimension. This was the first (that I know of) scientific attempt to grasp TIME in such a way. There have been followups to this as "time has gone by" by other scientists. I read last week of a pair that have scientifically offered parallel dimensions in our own dimension and apparently, although I'm not mathmetically inclined enuff to follow if they did, offered mathmetic evidence for consideration.
The problem with the Einstein cut below is it is not assuming a fourth axis as a permanent factor, however, just as a temporary tool to utilize in our dimension. In the first dimension there is an X axis. In 2d there is an X Y axis (which is not to say women are the 2d). In the third we have the XYZ axises/axii??! In each of these the axis is a constant, it is there at all times. In the Einstein cut below he is using that phrase to describe in 3d terms what it would be. HOWEVER in the 4d universe (I know it's not an appropriate use of universe, perhaps existance?) That PINCH or FOLD would be a constant. In other words it would be happening at all times. Just like we aren't sometimes a 2d existance here, a 4d entity would never be a 3d existance unless somehow it has that choice. AND being as we work under the assumption that 4d is Time as the next axis perhaps it is a 3d image. 3d images might be the most you can get, but you get that lack of time constraint, I dunno sorry for the tangent.
Anyway, in a 4d world the mass would be of different definition than in our natural laws in this 3d existance. It would have to be since MASS is the key to time, not time is the key to mass. And if that is the case, then trying to define something with our 3d natural laws would be as futile as trying to build a combustible engine in a 2d universe. (excluding cartoons of course). By definition it can't happen.
Therefore asking for proof of the Judeo Xian God is going to be impossible in 3d natural law definitions. It's literally like two blind men arguing colors. Do you see where I'm at here? I don't mean that derogatorily.
And to say that God can be disproven scientifically is no more accurate than saying I can prove him scientifically. The best we can accomplish is two different CHOICES of best conclusions from the data we have. I can't tell you that your choice is wrong, you can't tell me that my choice is wrong as there is no means in our current science to define it.
I hope I made some sense here. I'm sure you'll have some responses however you may choose NOT to respond if you are feeling this is all futile. ; ) I'm leaving you that way out if that is the case in hopes of not alienating you from future convo's with me.
I hope all is great with you and yours.
BD
----- Original Message -----
From: Alcyonian
To: Brad Dickey
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2003 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Re:
You state: I really don't see any explanations or refutations here. I see you put a lot of explanations of things down, but not apply them to the arguments I put forth to start with. This is much like the last note.
Me: I'm not making a refutation, I am correcting you on your Sheldrake/Hovind/Polkinghorne/Davies/Craig application of "science". Also, I'm not one for long dialogue, so I snip out what I think are the least relevant portions. Also, what I see is you trying to present a hypothesis in favour of a deity, when science has not done that, nor has Einstein, being pantheistic and adherring to Spinoza. And you insert "oscilation" which rests on Critical mass vs. Critical density - that's a whole other discussion.
the possiblity of extra universes was mathmetically suggested as recent as last week. If science is a standard to accept to discredit my Faith as I hear constantly in this chat room, then by golly it should go both ways. I'm told the evolutionary theory holds, so why can't the other theories, be consistent. (like the by golly part???)
You state: I'll accept that as a choice of belief. But not as an absolute. Reason being, science changes weekly and we can measure more and more.. That is not to say that something only exists when we can measure it. For example we still can't measure gravity directly... We can only measure it's effects and work backwards.
ME: I have mentioned that previously, science is fallable and bound by scientific method, so that is just repititious in comment from you.
You state: Just because Einstein didn't mention doesn't discredit the application. Especially since his intent wasn't to create a religious debate. TIME is only a measure of Mass... With no mass you have no time. So stop thinking of TIME as some concrete pillar of the universe when all it does is observe and record the universe. So with that in mind saying the universe it's self IS time is only an oversimplifed version of all that implies.
ME: What is the measure of weight of the universe, exactly? As the Universe expands, it's reduced, and as the weakest force (re: mass) I'm interested to know how you assert mass/time? And let me re-verify all my previous statements, time gives measure to the motion of the universe. That is, time complies with statistical entropy that with space expanding (being a dimension and dimension is point A to point B) that time is allocated between A and B. I still have no idea how you solidify into something that requires a mass subject to a force which is only partial in composition to the unification of all the forces.
You state: Your only comments here were a refutation of regurgitated comments explaining the process. WIthout applying your quotes you do not refute anything I said. I can agree to disagree if we need to get there but I had hoped you'd address the issues more directly. Maybe I'm just not making much sense in a way that you will follow. That's NOT saying you are stupid, just saying we come from different mindsets, and I need to put it in a way that is more appealing. I dunno.
ME: My statements are complying with current physics, without the verbiage of presupposition of applying physical properties to an hypothesis that stands outside of current scientific variables. I have been VERY clear in how I apply physics - the conflict is, it's not what you wish to hear as you continuously add presupposition ontop of scientific properties.
You state: Educate me on this maybe. But the only measurements I've seen for Gravity, anywhere, are to measure it's effects. In other words we can measure how fast an object falls to earth, or how much light bends around a black hole, we can determine a ratio to judge by. But we can't see, touch, feel, hear, smell, taste gravity to measure it. Reverse measurement like that is not the abolute proof that folx demand for God. Period. If it applies one way, it needs to apply both ways. That is all I was saying there.
ME: Agreed, it is difficult to construct instruments to measure the anomalies of gravity, as small as 1 part in 40,000,000, but the falling body measurement, the pendulum motion and mass on spring measurements, suffice adequately to negate the existentialistic interpretation of 'gravity' as you are applying. But a friend has brought to my attention "you have ashtekar's version that says space time is a lattice of "loops " at the planck scale" and "you have penrose saying it's really a product of "twistors" ( or maybe gravitons)" (J.E 2003).