Of what scientific use is ID?

papakapp said:

What is gravity? does it travel faster than light?

Click to expand...

If it does it has the potential to violate causality. Theory predicts it doesn't.

We have some working theories regarding gravity but they don't explain everything. For example, suppose the sun just disapeared. When would it get dark on earth? 7 minutes later, right? well when would earth stop orbiting and just fly off in a straight line? instantly, right? we don't really know because no one has tested this by making the sun dissapear but the point is that we have no working models in science to explain this. what if we have to abandon our old theories rather than refine them to get the answer? Who knows? Not me. The point is that I don't want to surpress either possibility.

Click to expand...

We already know General Relativity and Quantum Mechancs are incompatible and incomplete, you're no revolutionary there. Furthermore, it is for reasons a lot deeper than questions such as "does gravity travel at the speed of light?" Althought it hasn't been tested yet, we're pretty sure, from a theoretical framework, that yes gravity does travel at the speed of light. Remember that information cannot travel faster than c, and if it did, we would be able to violate causality (for reasons I'm too lazy to explain right now). The only reason we've been unable to test it is because gravity is a very, very, very weak force and the instrumentation necessary has to be extremely sensitive. Remember that although Einstein's General Relativity predicted that time goes slower for higher gravities, this wasn't tested until 1976 with Gravity Probe A. Moreover, the concept of "frame dragging" wasn't predicted until Gravity Probe B, which is still in operation. So I guess we'll eventually have a Gravity Probe C that will try to test the speed of gravity.

If you shine light on a glass the glass gets warm, right? where does the energy come from? the light does not slow down. But it still gives up some energy in the form of heat, right? Maybe the heat does not come from the light? We have no explination. I have no clue how this works but I would like to keep my options open.

Click to expand...

It really bothers me when people project their personal ignorance of science to the ignorance of science itself. This is a well-explained phenomenon. First of all yes, light does slow down--this is basic optics, when light changes from one medium to a denser medium it slows down. The energy comes from the fact that some of the light gets absorbed into the glass.

okay, last one. I promise this time. If you stick a magnet on your fridge it stays, right? where does this energy come from? It has to fight gravity 24/7. What the heck is that? Perpetual energy? Beats me but nobody has come up with a very good explination.

Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't read one. It doesn't take energy to keep something static. Just like it doesn't take energy to keep us attached to the Earth. It's called a force for a reason and the equation for energy in this case is W=Fd (W is work). The refridgerator magnet is not doing any work when it is stuck to the fridge because it is not accelerating anything. Consequently, it needs no energy to keep it attached.

The best current science can do is come up with overly complicated formulas that confuse everybody and offer no final answers. You can't really explain something until you can explain it on a 6 year old level.

Click to expand...

They don't confuse me... So basically your argument is "I don't understand it there for it is wrong?" Could you possibly tell me a way to explain differential geometry, spacetime curvature metrics, partial differential equations (for Maxwell's equations for example) to a 6-year-old? Are you serious?

I haven't gotten a chance to look at that site yet.

papakapp said:

okay, forget the philosophical implications. Here are a couple links. These authors have no concern for the evolution/ID debate. Ecpecially the articles written by Bill B. He is a professor of electrical theory or some such thing at WWU in Seattle. He's a reputable guy, he gets his paycheck teaching science and he has no discernable religous bias that I have seen.

http://www.alternativescience.com/forbidden-science.htm

http://amasci.com/freenrg/newidea1.html

http://amasci.com/freenrg/abhor.html

this Bill B. guy is my hero. (kinda) I if you read those last two articles and are the slightest bit interested you might want to go to http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html and check out some other of his articles. I can honestly say that this guy screwed with my head (In a good way) more than just about anybody.

If you don't bother to follow the links then I will just ask a couple questions.

What is gravity? does it travel faster than light? We have some working theories regarding gravity but they don't explain everything. For example, suppose the sun just disapeared. When would it get dark on earth? 7 minutes later, right? well when would earth stop orbiting and just fly off in a straight line? instantly, right? we don't really know because no one has tested this by making the sun dissapear but the point is that we have no working models in science to explain this. what if we have to abandon our old theories rather than refine them to get the answer? Who knows? Not me. The point is that I don't want to surpress either possibility.

One more

If you shine light on a glass the glass gets warm, right? where does the energy come from? the light does not slow down. But it still gives up some energy in the form of heat, right? Maybe the heat does not come from the light? We have no explination. I have no clue how this works but I would like to keep my options open.

okay, last one. I promise this time. If you stick a magnet on your fridge it stays, right? where does this energy come from? It has to fight gravity 24/7. What the heck is that? Perpetual energy? Beats me but nobody has come up with a very good explination.

The best current science can do is come up with overly complicated formulas that confuse everybody and offer no final answers. You can't really explain something until you can explain it on a 6 year old level.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links.

Others can address your questions far better than I, but I can remark on the second. Light energy has variable wavelengths. The heat does not come from the light, it is light.

From the site:
(1) Coldfusion: if you can get this to work you will be filthy rich. You have no idea what a great boon to society it would be if it were achievable. Unfortunately, the experiments haven't been replicated.

(2) Psychokinesis: pseudoscience.

(3) "Darwinism: The Forbidden Subject" why is it forbidden??

ehhh
too lazy to continue

this is just a crackpot pseudoscience website

papakapp said:

What is gravity? does it travel faster than light?

Click to expand...

No, it travels at exactly c. Contrary to your post, we have a working model of gravity which predicts this, as well as some empirical confirmation.

RoboMastodon said:

From the site:
(1) Coldfusion: if you can get this to work you will be filthy rich. You have no idea what a great boon to society it would be if it were achievable. Unfortunately, the experiments haven't been replicated.

(2) Psychokinesis: pseudoscience.

(3) "Darwinism: The Forbidden Subject" why is it forbidden??

ehhh
too lazy to continue

this is just a crackpot pseudoscience website

Click to expand...

if you did bother to continue you would have found a much more reliable source. It kind of likens finding new discoveries to digging through a dumpster of crackpot pseudo science. the last link is about 50 exapmles of where this paid off, followed by about 50 examples of things that may or may not pay off. The point is they keep their minds open.

GoSeminoles! said:

What scientific purpose would be served by concluding X is the product of intelligent design? For now let's ignore thorny questions of exactly how this could be demonstrated to a level of scientific rigor.* Maybe discovering the evolutionary origin of X has been so difficult that scientists collectively throw up their hands and conclude it is of intelligent design.

Click to expand...

Have you ever considered the 'purpose' of God being involved in our world? If God did indeed act in time and space to create life as we know it then there should be some evidence of that. At some point random chance has to give way to life being the result of an idea.

In a nutshell, this is why methological naturalism is the only fruitful way to do science.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with this to a point, theology makes weak science. Nevertheless, there still has to be some way of identifying God's work as verifiable beyond the assertions of the faithfull. Is God acting in time and space verifiable by empirical and objective standards? Would a scientist be able to recognize it if such a thing presented itself?

mark kennedy said:

Nevertheless, there still has to be some way of identifying God's work as verifiable beyond the assertions of the faithfull.

Click to expand...

No, there doesn't 'have' to be. As far as we can tell, there isn't, and your belief that there should be is really irrelevant.

mark kennedy said:

Is God acting in time and space verifiable by empirical and objective standards?

Click to expand...

Not that we can tell.

mark kennedy said:

Would a scientist be able to recognize it if such a thing presented itself?

Click to expand...

No.

papakapp said:

true, but presenting only one theory is tantamount to teaching absolute truth by osmosis.

Click to expand...

but we have only 1 scientific theory that adequately explains the origin of biodiversity. ID is not a scientific theory, and therefore does not belong in a science class, regardless of how many theories you would ideally like to present. we can't present more theories than we have, and at this point in time, there are no scientific theories that are valid alternatives to evolution.

mark kennedy said:

If God did indeed act in time and space to create life as we know it then there should be some evidence of that.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but the proposed "God" entity has no scientifically verifiable characteristics which we could use to determine exactly what was and what was not his doing.

Nevertheless, there still has to be some way of identifying God's work as verifiable beyond the assertions of the faithfull.

Click to expand...

I do not understand why this must be so. Why can't the faithful just take it as faith and leave it at that?

papakapp said:

if you did bother to continue you would have found a much more reliable source. It kind of likens finding new discoveries to digging through a dumpster of crackpot pseudo science. the last link is about 50 exapmles of where this paid off, followed by about 50 examples of things that may or may not pay off. The point is they keep their minds open.

Click to expand...

I'm not doing the work for you: if you have valid science to present, then present it.

Edit - I guess I was wrong. There is some empirical confirmation of speed of gravity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3232

Robomastadon, don't fret.

papakapp, I have a limited amount of time in my day.

1) Gravity both by theory and observation seems to travel at c.
2) If you shine a light on any object and that object is warmed, then the resulting light (whether reflected or refracted) will be of a measurably longer wavelength just as quantum mechanics predicts because the energy of light is related to its wavelength, not its velocity.
3) The magnet stays on your refrigerator because it is exerting force. The question of where the energy comes from is meaningless because force and energy are not the same thing. It is identical in this way to the phenomenon of why the ground supports you against the Earth's gravity. It is not uncommon for pseudoscientists to have no clue what the work function is or why it is important in these matters.

So, the three examples you gave us were completely bogus. Abduction suggests that I shouldn't waste any more time further pursuing the links you posted. Can you successfully argue this?

Science is actually incredibly simple in conception. I cannot think of a single scientific idea which cannot be simply stated. However, its consequences are far more complex than the ideas behind them. Confusing the two is a mistake.