Official Call For Papers

[AV1611VET]

BTW, still waiting for original papers supporting theory of DSP.

Isn't it great that in real science many things related to the PHYSICAL LAWS don't require someone to have "written" the evidence?

You guys make up my mind what you want, please.

Do you want original papers, or not?

If so, you're not going to get them --- they were not written, remember?

This is in an era you guys call 'prehistoric times'.

So please reassess the validity of what you're asking for.

 

[thaumaturgy]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/CosmologyAlfven.pdf

What are you still waiting for exactly? Got a gram of "dark matter"? Care to explain why I should put any "faith" in a dead inflation deity and dark evil energies?

Michael, let me tell you what I'm waiting for:

As a geologist I see an orderly development of earth's history recorded in the rocks. Geologists have done massive amounts of analysis of rock and know how it is formed and deformed. We know many of the processes, we see many of the same processes forming the same types of features today that we see in ancient rocks. We know a great deal about radiometric and other forms of dating which allow us to place "time-stamps" on features going back millions and billions of years.

Of course at some point something could have altered the physical laws in some unknown way, but the fact remains that features recorded in ancient rocks still look the same as features being made today in many cases. So why would there be a need for a DSP.

If one hypothesizes a DSP, then surely there is some necessity for said hypothesis. THAT is what I'm waiting for.

This is what I like to call the "HTT Enigma". Let me explain:

I walk down the street and I see a husband and wife at the laundromat doing laundry together. I can assume one of two things:

1. This is a male husband and female wife
2. This is a female husband and male wife. The husband is a "homosexual, transsexual transvestite", in that he believes himself to be a woman trapped in a mans body who likes to dress as the opposite sex (men) and who loves people of the same sex (women, in his case since he believes himself to be a woman). The wife is also an HTT (homosexual transsexual transvestite). She believes herself to be a man trapped in a womans body who likes to dress like women and loves men (her own "real" gender as she perceives it to be)

Which is more likely to be the case?

Now, add onto that that there is a huge amount of evidence that fundamental physical laws certainly date back an awfully long time. We have evidence from Supernova SN1987a (170,000 years ago) as well as the Oklo "reactor" in Gabon (~2 billion years ago), which give indication of some constancy to the fundamental laws of physics.

Of course scientists are still studying it. No one can come out and prove a "negative", but it is stronger evidence of a Same State Past than some "DSP".

So, for the moment, forget the conjectures of cosmology like "dark matter/energy". Focus on the reasons why someone would believe in a DSP. And also what possible problems (or even "falsifiability criteria") that would be encountered, must be addressed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You guys make up my mind what you want, please.

Do you want original papers, or not?

What makes you think I don't want original papers? OH, I get it! You think by "original papers" scientists think that just writing something is the same as "proving" it!

Oh, yeah, I see. Sorry, but what I meant was that a scientist RECORDS data (which can be verified by other readers).

You must have a very strange, sad child-like view of what science articles are all about.

If so, you're not going to get them --- they were not written, remember?

Geez, is everything a "word game" for you? Honestly? Is that what your faith revolves around?

This is in an era you guys call 'prehistoric times'.

Please, you're embarrassing yourself here. Stop it.

So please reassess the validity of what you're asking for.

Please, I beg of you, just learn the simplist scientific concept, even if it's something called a "journal article". It's really, really simple, AV. Honestly.

Unless all you have is wordgames. I like word-games, but I don't like someone acting needlessly dense.

(I really hope you are just joking with this post, honestly. Because if you're not you are off the deep end here.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Please, I beg of you, just learn the simplist scientific concept, even if it's something called a "journal article". It's really, really simple, AV. Honestly.

You want a journal article?

Here you go: 28.

You can deny the validity of its Author, you can deny when it was written, but you cannot deny its existence.

And if you (or anyone) is going to ask me for documentation for a different state past, that is what you are going to get.

If that's not good enough, then you are going to need an eyewitness account --- and asking for eyewitness evidence from a period in time when you claim no one wrote anything is like me asking you to show me legal tender dated 500 BC.

I'm getting the impression though, that what you want is a contemporary written article on different state past, and probably stamped with an official scientist's logo.

And again, you're not going to get it --- science is too myopic to be able to observe what went on on this planet during its maiden voyage around the sun.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You want a journal article?

Here you go: 28.

You can deny the validity of its Author

WHAT AUTHOR???

You see, AV, you have to prove the author you think wrote it exists.

Which is more rational? That GOD HIMSELF wrote Genesis? Or that a mere mortal wrote Genesis (even if that mere mortal thought he was writing on behalf of God).

If I submitted an article on a scientific concept and signed it "God Almighty", do you think it would be published???

That's the whole point! The Bible looks an awful lot like it was written by humans. In fact, unless you can find evidence that Genesis wasn't or that it was, definitively written with absolute inspiration by God, then you are just "believing" it, not necessarily using it as a scientific concept.

, you can deny when it was written, but you cannot deny its existence.

Here's a Clue On How We Think: JUST BECAUSE IT EXISTS AS A DOCUMENT DOES NOT MAKE IT NECESSARILY TRUE.

Truth must be such a pointless and meaningless concept for Biblical Literalists. They seem to hold it in such disdain. If something were "true" you'd think it would be patently obviously true to all comers. But for a Literalist "Truth" is nothing more than some dirt on their shoes. They can take it or leave it but they just walk all over it and don't think much about it's importance.

Ironically these same people claim some "Absolute Truth" to be the ultimate. Irony upon irony.

And if you (or anyone) is going to ask me for documentation for a different state past, that is what you are going to get.

OK, so it "proves" it to you. Good for you. Then you'll be equally moved by just about any ancient written creation myth? Do you believe everything written by unknown authors that claim to be about supernatural things?

If not, then maybe you need to provide the information by which you deny some and accept others.

If that's not good enough, then you are going to need an eyewitness account --- and asking for eyewitness evidence from a period in time when you claim no one wrote anything is like me asking you to show me legal tender dated 500 BC.

Oh jeezly. You still don't get it do you? I'm a geologist by training which means I see rocks that act as "witnesses" to their history. They cannot lie, they cannot have a religious agenda, they cannot be telling me what they fervent wish happened to them.

That is what is meant by physical evidence.

If the only thing God can rely on is that he inspired some unknown person to "record" events, but somehow "hides" all evidence of the actual events, well, I think we've all seen what that is.

I'm getting the impression though, that what you want is a contemporary written article on different state past, and probably stamped with an official scientist's logo.

No, Not at all. But I'm glad your "Strawman-Fu" is strong. That is pretty much all that Creationists and Biblical Literalists have in the end. They take on science without understanding even simple concepts in it and then think they are being oh-so-clever.

FAIL.

And again, you're not going to get it --- science is too myopic to be able to observe what went on on this planet during its maiden voyage around the sun.

"Science is too myopic"? Doesn't that mean you think you understand science to know it's limits????

But you technically, by your own admission, don't care about science. You tell it to "take a hike" all the time!

DIAGNOSTIC:
Christian Failure Mode: LUKE 6:31 FAIL


Next time, try critiquing something you have made at least a minimal effort to understand.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So, what we have learned so far, is that proclamation does not equal investigation. It is not enough to discredit widely held theories that have been substantially supported by data for over one hundred years, but one must replace it with a theory supported by data that better explains what has already been observed and studied.

DSP has done neither. It has been shown to be pure supposition, based entirely upon religious belief. If you would like to have DSP accepted and looked upon with even the slightest bit of credibility by anyone other than those espousing DSP, then do some actual research and come up with your own theory based on calculations derived from your own observations. If it has merit, it will be stand on its own. But in the meantime, please, quit pooping on those who have dedicated their lives to adding to and helping us understand what we currently know.

It is estimated that our scientific knowledge doubles every fifteen years! This doesn't happen by accident, but by real people, doing real research, and then publishing their data to be scrutinized by their peers. It will sink or swim on its own.

So, until you can show us something to substantiate your claims, please stop ranting about the shortfalls of modern science, blah, blah, blah. The current accepted theory of STR/GTR and QM is like a bullet train travelling at 130 mph (210 kmh for our non US CF'ers ), and DSP is like a gnat on the windshield.

This thread will be considered closed until such time as real data is presented.

Thanks to thamaturgy for your posts, good stuff.

 

[Michael]

Of course at some point something could have altered the physical laws in some unknown way, but the fact remains that features recorded in ancient rocks still look the same as features being made today in many cases. So why would there be a need for a DSP.

I'm evidently still not following your complaint very well. I don't see how you excluded Lambda-CDM theory from being a "DSP". The inflation phase seems to qualify for that label as well as any other theory. In fact it is the only theory I am aware of that allow for "faster than light" expansion and basic ideas that *are* consistent with YEC theories.

Electric universe/plasma comsmology theory doesn't actually qualify as a DSP theory because it has no inflation phases, no need for dark energy, no need for DM, etc. It actually assumes the the same laws of physics have always applied to the universe and at no time did the universe operate under any other processes.

If one hypothesizes a DSP, then surely there is some necessity for said hypothesis. THAT is what I'm waiting for.

What "necessity" is there for "inflation"? It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to provide you with a specific creation date that is otherwise (without inflation) no more physically justifiable than any YEC theory. Both YEC and Lambda-CDM theory require a "faster than light" expansion phase.

It seems to me that about all you can be sure of is that the Earth is quite ancient. Coming up with an actual "creation date" seems to necessitate the invention of a DSP moment. For Lambda-CMD theory, that involved inflation.

 

[Michael]

So, what we have learned so far, is that proclamation does not equal investigation. It is not enough to discredit widely held theories that have been substantially supported by data for over one hundred years, but one must replace it with a theory supported by data that better explains what has already been observed and studied.

There are several problems with this statement. First of all, no "data" actually supports "inflation". No data actually supports "dark energy". There were both ad hoc constructs that were added to Lambda-CMD theory in the past few decades.

The other glaring problem with your proclamation is that I can elect to reject your Lambda-CMD theory for any number of valid scientific reasons without any need to "replace" it with anything else. If you can't justify you faith in a dead inflation deity, I have no reason to put "faith" in Guth's make-believe force of nature.

I can reject the notion of "dark energy" because nothing like that actually exists in nature or shows up in any controlled experiments here on Earth. I don't have to replace your theory with anything to reject it for any number of valid scientific reasons.

DSP has done neither. It has been shown to be pure supposition, based entirely upon religious belief.

How is Lambda-CMD theory not a "religious belief"? How is it *NOT* a "DSP"?

If you would like to have DSP accepted and looked upon with even the slightest bit of credibility by anyone other than those espousing DSP, then do some actual research and come up with your own theory based on calculations derived from your own observations.

What if I have no interest in a "DSP" at all, not even your DSP theory?

If it has merit, it will be stand on its own.

How does "inflation" or "dark energy" stand on it's own merit exactly? What objective criteria are you using?

But in the meantime, please, quit pooping on those who have dedicated their lives to adding to and helping us understand what we currently know.

We actually only "know" about 4% of what goes on in space. That's all we have actually identified as being related to actual physics in Lambda-CMD theory. The rest is purely an ad hoc series of constructs.

It is estimated that our scientific knowledge doubles every fifteen years!

That's true for "hands on" technologies like computer science and things that show up in lab. As it relates to astronomy however, all bets are off.

This doesn't happen by accident, but by real people, doing real research, and then publishing their data to be scrutinized by their peers. It will sink or swim on its own.

The peer review process is no guarantee of accuracy.

So, until you can show us something to substantiate your claims, please stop ranting about the shortfalls of modern science, blah, blah, blah.

I'm not complaining about modern "science". I'm complaining about modern "pseudoscience" that has been stuffed into the curriculum. If "goddidit" is not an acceptable explanation, the "inflationfairiesdidit' is not acceptable either without some evidence that inflation actually isn't a figment your collective imagination.

The current accepted theory of STR/GTR and QM is like a bullet train travelling at 130 mph (210 kmh for our non US CF'ers ), and DSP is like a gnat on the windshield.

Gah. Lambda-CMD theory *IS* a "DSP" theory! Look at the inflation phase. Look at the 'Dark energy" components. It's a "religion", not a science. In fact the whole BB idea came from a Catholic Priest, and it's now held together with 96% metaphysical mumbo jumbo. You're dreaming if you think it's immune from these same complaints.

This thread will be considered closed until such time as real data is presented.

You've never demonstrate the standard theory is anything other than a DSP as well.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Actually, computer technology is estimated to double every year! I was referring to all other fields of study doubling every fifteen years.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Your posts are kind of hard to follow BTW, you coming close to a "dad" type argument when you start claiming dark energy being a religion etc.

And I thought it was Einstein who proposed BB.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, AV, you have to prove the author you think wrote it exists.

That's the easy part.

Can you show me something in existence today that was written and rewritten over a period of 1515 years (96 - 1611) with this much accuracy: ∆H[sub]Bible[/sub] = 0 ?

Be sure and include at least one superpower who allocated some of their funds to destroying this writing.

God's words are eternal.

 

[Michael]

Actually, computer technology is estimated to double every year! I was referring to all other fields of study doubling every fifteen years.

Well, you're probably correct on both points. As it relates to "creation science" (and yes, Lambda-CMD theory is in that category), it undergoes some type of "crisis" about every 15 years or so.

For instance, 20 years ago, nobody ever heard of "dark energy' and nobody believed our universe was composed of "dark evil energy". Then one day some scientists noticed a pattern of what appears to be "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe and decided to call it 'dark energy'. Suddenly when astronomers talked about the makeup of the universe, 75% of it is "dark energy". Of course we have to accept this on faith because 'dark energy' never shows up in a lab experiment on Earth in a controlled experiment. It's a purely ad hoc creation.

The 'new thing' in metaphysics today are SUSY brands of "dark matter' with all sorts of ad-hoc properties that never show up in a controlled experiment on Earth.

I'm afraid creation "science' isn't even much of a "science" at this point. In fact only 4% of current Lambda-CDM theory is based on actual "physical things' that show up in controlled experiments on Earth. The other 96% is pure metaphysics.

 

[Michael]

Your posts are kind of hard to follow BTW, you coming close to a "dad" type argument when you start claiming dark energy being a religion etc.

And I thought it was Einstein who proposed BB.

I'm not familiar with the "dad" lingo, so you'll have to fill me on on that idea.

As it relates to "dark energy" and religion, what is the distinction between religion and science other than what shows up in controlled laboratory experimentation? When did DE show up in a *controlled* laboratory experiment on Earth? How is that idea not an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer"? Why can't I slap that same math to the term "God energy" and have a new form of theism?

 

[dad]

As a geologist I see an orderly development of earth's history recorded in the rocks. Geologists have done massive amounts of analysis of rock and know how it is formed and deformed. We know many of the processes, we see many of the same processes forming the same types of features today that we see in ancient rocks. We know a great deal about radiometric and other forms of dating which allow us to place "time-stamps" on features going back millions and billions of years.

Of course at some point something could have altered the physical laws in some unknown way, but the fact remains that features recorded in ancient rocks still look the same as features being made today in many cases. So why would there be a need for a DSP.

I do not see why rocks would suddenly appear different, unless we looked for a decay state to start to exist.

Now, add onto that that there is a huge amount of evidence that fundamental physical laws certainly date back an awfully long time. We have evidence from Supernova SN1987a (170,000 years ago) as well as the Oklo "reactor" in Gabon (~2 billion years ago), which give indication of some constancy to the fundamental laws of physics.

I have dealt with those things in some detail in other thread. The imagination required to dunk the reactor area miles under on cue, in an imaginary same state, and magically resurface it at the right time, and etc etc is collosal. The facts of the case do not warrant any conclusions of a same state reation as they claim at all.

The Supernova they looked at was dissected after the fact, rather than predicted, for example the rings were a surprise. There are other issues also with it. When the dust settles what we see is merely an excersise in trying to project this state and laws, to infinity and beyond.

Of course scientists are still studying it. No one can come out and prove a "negative", but it is stronger evidence of a Same State Past than some "DSP".

Not at all.

So, for the moment, forget the conjectures of cosmology like "dark matter/energy".....

One must forget about them, really, because they are same state based hand waving from the getgo.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I do not see why rocks would suddenly appear different, unless we looked for a decay state to start to exist.

You do not see why rocks would suddenly appear different? Even if the fundamental physical laws were different? Do you know how rocks form?

I have dealt with those things in some detail in other thread.

You have addressed them, just not really "dealt" with them. There's a difference.

The imagination required to dunk the reactor area miles under on cue, in an imaginary same state, and magically resurface it at the right time, and etc etc is collosal.

Wh...what? Dunk? What? It relates to the ratios of uranium isotopes related to neutron capture and the fine structure constant. I don't see how that relates to "dunking" the reactor.

Oh, by the way, we have many other examples where geologic formations have been buried and re-exposed all over the earth. Unrelated topic. (Although, as usual, one I'm rather intimately familiar with which is probably more than you can say.) Nice try though.

The facts of the case do not warrant any conclusions of a same state reation as they claim at all.

I'm afraid I will have to take the information from trained nuclear physicists over the "claims" of a man with minimal skills in algebra and almost no apparent scientific background whatsoever. Thanks for playing, though. (And when it comes to science, do always remember, you are just "playing".)

One must forget about them, really, because they are same state based hand waving from the getgo.

Do you have trouble following conversations, Dad? Perhaps you should read what it was I was saying rather than just stating things.

I was addressing Michael who seemed to limit the discussion to hypotheses and inferrentail conjectures like dark matter/dark energy and I wanted to take it back to brass-tacks as they say and get to the meat of it. To take it to things we know quite a bit about (sorry if the "know quite a bit about" part left you in the dust).

 

[thaumaturgy]

Can you show me something in existence today that was written and rewritten over a period of 1515 years (96 - 1611) with this much accuracy: ∆H[sub]Bible[/sub] = 0 ?

The change in enthalpy of the bible is zero????

What on earth does that mean? Please fill me in.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm evidently still not following your complaint very well.

I was taking it away from conjectural concepts such as dark matter/energy. To my understanding (admittedly I'm not a cosmologist) but my understanding of dark matter was that it was invoked to explain gravitational effects but has, thus far, not been "proven". There is some mass somewhere that has thus far been undetected.

Besides, to my knowledge, the first stopping point on the "Different State Train" is usually brought about because of earth history not matching up with Literal Genesis.

So I take it back to the core concept. How many Creationists started with cold dark matter and reasoned some different state past? But I bet just about every single creationist started by saying "hmmm, geology doesn't match up with what I read in Genesis, ergo musta been a different state!"

I don't see how you excluded Lambda-CDM theory from being a "DSP". The inflation phase seems to qualify for that label as well as any other theory. In fact it is the only theory I am aware of that allow for "faster than light" expansion and basic ideas that *are* consistent with YEC theories.

Again, this may be the case, I don't know. But wouldn't that have predated even the ability for a living organism let alone a human author and the whole "Genesis" story to have existed?

As for events at or near the Big Bang, well sure I'm sure many things were rather dramatically different. To my knowledge that is not the usual rationale behind the "Different State Past" as discussed in the OP.

But, again, I am no cosmologist.

Electric universe/plasma comsmology theory doesn't actually qualify as a DSP theory because it has no inflation phases, no need for dark energy, no need for DM, etc. It actually assumes the the same laws of physics have always applied to the universe and at no time did the universe operate under any other processes.

Again, the "electric universe" stuff I've been exposed to seems to go to ridiculous extremes to explain rather mundane geologic phenomena when it applies to earth structures (my area is geology, obviously, so I tend to deal more in geologic topics, my apologies with that limitation).

What "necessity" is there for "inflation"? It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to provide you with a specific creation date that is otherwise (without inflation) no more physically justifiable than any YEC theory. Both YEC and Lambda-CDM theory require a "faster than light" expansion phase.

Except YEC requires these alarming changes within the very recent past. Even the Big Bang left over the background microwave radiation signature billions of years later.

But the Different State Past assumptions I've heard from YEC usually require the existence of developed humanity before the "change". A stable different state, followed by a dramatic change in all physical laws but yet resulting in the ONLY evidence being the book of Genesis written by an anonymous source at an unknown time. In other words the physical evidence of a prior altered, stable state (certainly here on earth) is non-existent.

It seems to me that about all you can be sure of is that the Earth is quite ancient. Coming up with an actual "creation date" seems to necessitate the invention of a DSP moment. For Lambda-CMD theory, that involved inflation.

I don't think the inflationary phase of the Big Bang which occured, what, about 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang has any direct bearing on geologic history of a planet that didn't show up until about 10 billion years after the big bang.

Again, I'm not a cosmologist, but I don't really see how this relates specifically to a "DSP" as utilized by most Creationists. Unless, of course, the Creationist claims that the first several chapters of Genesis occured in the femto seconds prior to "inflation".

 

[AV1611VET]

The change in enthalpy of the bible is zero????

What on earth does that mean? Please fill me in.

1

 

[thaumaturgy]

Uh, not to nit-pick, but H is "enthalpy" (heat). S is entropy in standard notation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh, not to nit-pick, but H is "enthalpy" (heat). S is entropy in standard notation.

41