• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Recent content by mkatzwork

  1. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    That is where you are going wrong. I'm not debating the definition of either a true or non-true vacuum and I think we'd agree on the definitions most likely. The vacuum he is referring to in that particular sentence is most certainly that of SR, because otherwise why bother to have the "a...
  2. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    No, sorry, you're just wrong. The vacuum of SR is a hypothetical vacuum - you may argue that it doesn't exist in reality, but that doesn't matter. He isn't describing it, he's waving it away entirely as a concept, along with the constancy of the speed of light in a hypothetical vacuum. It...
  3. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    You to understand what the guy wrote. Aether was the precursor to SR...you know that right? Read what I wrote again. Really carefully. He is talking about fundamentals - it's a hypothetical vacuum, not the real thing. That's what SR refers to.
  4. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    The Stark effect does NOT cause the redshift (not even in the Chen paper, according to Ashmore). It causes the pressure blurring of the spectral lines by charged particles, such as the example of additional electrons in carbon nanotubes, demonstrated by Chen. Species dependent interactions...
  5. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    :doh: This isn't a false dilemma. Sorry. You're not reading what it says. He says "the speed of light in A vacuum" A Vacuum. The indefinite article, not the definite article or the proximal demonstrative 'This'. He does not say "this "vacuum" that I'm defining here which isn't a vacuum at...
  6. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Two gems from the Holushko paper on Type Ia Supernovae - just from page 1. "It would be hard to imagine that physical waves that are travelling on the same path for billion years will have exactly the same travelling time, with millisecond accuracy." This cracks me up. He's basically...
  7. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Read what he said carefully. Why exactly would plasma and EM fields change whether the speed of light in a vacuum is constant or not? Holushko invokes either a Lorentz violation or a complete overturning of SR...your pick! See above distinction. I'm not discounting the rest of his...
  8. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." SR and GR both go out the window with this. Still want to tout his code? Holushko - "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." SR and GR implicitly fall. It's not. Agreed. What's the problem...
  9. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    So when you said this, Michael, with such vehemence - do you admit you might...just *possibly* be wrong - since a point particle interpretation of collisions (as you so helpfully starred for emphasis) leads to untenable "blurring"? So you jump from predominantly touting Ashmore's theory, to...
  10. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Er - Holushko's does, as he clearly states: "the speed of light in a vacuum is not a fundamental constant." Lorentz violation much? Or not so much, more an entire rejection of SR. Wonder why nobody cares too much about his work or his code. Ashmore relies heavily on the Magic paper (let's...
  11. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    I don't exactly...the MAGIC paper relied on Lorentz violations for its conclusion, and Ashmore simply took that conclusion and based his conclusion off of it without properly examining the implications. The "multiple collision" model fails to account for the probability of the photon arriving in...
  12. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Ah, changing the topic. We all know what that signifies... See car analogy above. We don't know for sure that they were emitted at the same time - nobody can say that - so overturning the entirety of cosmology or GR based on that kind of observation would be rather silly. I know how you...
  13. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    Neither does the Harry Potter website. Is that all physically accurate too? Generally people don't mention when they get stuff wrong because they haven't realized it. It would take a liar or an idiot to act otherwise.
  14. M

    Physics and the Immortality of the Soul

    You're missing why Lorentz violations get brought up; the reason this is is the "its had many collisions en route" model is not feasible. Here's a real simple analogy. Two cars arrive at a destination. We know they drove in a straight line between us and the point they departed from, which we...