If Einsteins wrong then what?

[mindlight]

This is a simple yet profound point. Aristotle speculated there were 2 types of movement, violent and nature. Perhaps predictable and unpredictable would be a very boiled down way to look at it. His downfall was in his examples, most of which shown to also be natural movements.

I think there are 3 types of movement (causality if you will). Natural (uniform/predictable), random (predictably/uniformly unpredictable), and willful/purposeful (experimentally unpredictable). This last one will always be outside of the realm of science. And IMO, it's that last one that played a primary role in our origins.

While it's neat seeing advances in physics, I don't get too excited about it in regard to the origins question.

Many of the models of modern science appear to believe they can explain everything including origins and remote cosmology. But given the existence of things which do not follow known laws or are unpredictable because unobservable (maybe socalled dark matter is an example of this) and given the rare and unique ways God chose to intervene at the creation, flood, creation miracles and also coming judgments of Revelation these models seem quite artificial to many Christians. Furthermore big assumptions made such as uniformitarianism may be poorly founded in the grand scheme of things while working well on the more local and practical level.

Science works very well with what can be tested and repeated but not so well on this speculative level in my view. Yet the budget for these speculative studies of things we may never verify are enormous. I think the development of a better rocket propulsion technology or a space elevator might be a better use of resources than what was spent on the Hadron Collider, But if we are going to get research out of these things I want to hear the results however expensive they were.

People seem to think that because there is a dominant theory about the universe it must also be excepted as such. But actually it might remain just an inhouse fantasy that does not really explain anything of real value to human lives. Such a theory is not there to be overthrown and replaced by another overarching grand deception. It is there to be exposed as being useless here and there. One can accept 90% of the practical fruit of science while entirely rejecting the theories that scientists claim to have spawned them. Altoften I think its actually the other way around. What is proven to work in one area is overextended to explain things outside its remit. People accept the results because they work but then mistakenly also accept the explanations for things outside of sciences remit on the basis of the authority of these successes. It is like a man who builds a car explaining how space ships work. He has insights but is not an authority that can be accepted 100%. People love his cars but they only assume he knows about spaceships.

 

[Calminian]

Many of the models of modern science appear to believe they can explain everything including origins and remote cosmology. But given the existence of things which do not follow known laws or are unpredictable because unobservable (maybe socalled dark matter is an example of this) and given the rare and unique ways God chose to intervene at the creation, flood, creation miracles and also coming judgments of Revelation these models seem quite artificial to many Christians. Furthermore big assumptions made such as uniformitarianism may be poorly founded in the grand scheme of things while working well on the more local and practical level.

Science works very well with what can be tested and repeated but not so well on this speculative level in my view. Yet the budget for these speculative studies of things we may never verify are enormous. I think the development of a better rocket propulsion technology or a space elevator might be a better use of resources than what was spent on the Hadron Collider, But if we are going to get research out of these things I want to hear the results however expensive they were.

People seem to think that because there is a dominant theory about the universe it must also be excepted as such. But actually it might remain just an inhouse fantasy that does not really explain anything of real value to human lives. Such a theory is not there to be overthrown and replaced by another overarching grand deception. It is there to be exposed as being useless here and there. One can accept 90% of the practical fruit of science while entirely rejecting the theories that scientists claim to have spawned them. Altoften I think its actually the other way around. What is proven to work in one area is overextended to explain things outside its remit. People accept the results because they work but then mistakenly also accept the explanations for things outside of sciences remit on the basis of the authority of these successes. It is like a man who builds a car explaining how space ships work. He has insights but is not an authority that can be accepted 100%. People love his cars but they only assume he knows about spaceships.

Good words. I've often reminisced that that science killed the philosophy star (much like video killed the radio star). Science is of course born out of philosophy, and indeed has its foundation is philosophical reasoning—most of which I have no problem with, when it's used methodologically and limited to appropriate fields of study. The original founders of modern science understood this well, and had a much better grasp on its limitations.

What you say is true. Many if not most scientists today believe they are philosophical and theological geniuses. I exaggerate not. And yet most that I have come across are borderline pathetic thinkers. They just don't get certain things, and certain concepts and you try to talk to them they they get very defensive and start throwing their credentials as you. And a few insults too.

 

[DamonWV]

regardless of any test or theories, how could anyone possibly know or experiment such things. with so much distance and so much universe out there. If billions of years , how can anyone know the constant state of anything, or the affects of the variables from time and substanance in the universe.

 

[shernren]

Science works very well with what can be tested and repeated but not so well on this speculative level in my view. Yet the budget for these speculative studies of things we may never verify are enormous.

That, among the other things you wrote in the same post, is bull.

The LHC has a total budget of approximately $9 billion. That's not even money spent so far (which is less than total budget), that's all the money that the LHC could theoretically have access to.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense spends about $3 billion a year on, not jet fighters, not battle cruisers, but "family housing", whatever that is. Do the math - three years and you have spent the equivalent of the cost of one LHC.

Meanwhile, the construction cost of materials for a space elevator is estimated to be about $450 million. (See here: The Space Review: Is a space elevator worth its weight in diamonds? ) And that's assuming that it uses a 3,000 kilometer cable made entirely of diamonds.

If you could just get off your hobby-horse, stop foul-mouthing scientists for a few minutes, and actually find out about the things you so freely denigrate, you would find that global spending on science is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money that Joe Taxpayer is giving the government of America to enable the killing of people in distant lands.

 

[clancey james]

God's faster than light, as is Jesus.

 

[mindlight]

Still looking like a good result

Faster-Than-Light Neutrinos Confirmed Yet Again - Softpedia

 

[mindlight]

Good words. I've often reminisced that that science killed the philosophy star (much like video killed the radio star). Science is of course born out of philosophy, and indeed has its foundation is philosophical reasoning—most of which I have no problem with, when it's used methodologically and limited to appropriate fields of study. The original founders of modern science understood this well, and had a much better grasp on its limitations.

What you say is true. Many if not most scientists today believe they are philosophical and theological geniuses. I exaggerate not. And yet most that I have come across are borderline pathetic thinkers. They just don't get certain things, and certain concepts and you try to talk to them they they get very defensive and start throwing their credentials as you. And a few insults too.

Exactly

 

[mindlight]

That, among the other things you wrote in the same post, is bull.

The LHC has a total budget of approximately $9 billion. That's not even money spent so far (which is less than total budget), that's all the money that the LHC could theoretically have access to.

Meanwhile, the US Department of Defense spends about $3 billion a year on, not jet fighters, not battle cruisers, but "family housing", whatever that is. Do the math - three years and you have spent the equivalent of the cost of one LHC.

Meanwhile, the construction cost of materials for a space elevator is estimated to be about $450 million. (See here: The Space Review: Is a space elevator worth its weight in diamonds? ) And that's assuming that it uses a 3,000 kilometer cable made entirely of diamonds.

If you could just get off your hobby-horse, stop foul-mouthing scientists for a few minutes, and actually find out about the things you so freely denigrate, you would find that global spending on science is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of money that Joe Taxpayer is giving the government of America to enable the killing of people in distant lands.

The only thing I have denigrated some scientists about is their arrogant certainty about things that cannot be confirmed by science e.g. Origins or remote cosmology.

Speculations about these matters have been proclaimed as facts.

Regarding practical scientific projects such as building a space elevator I am very enthusiastic although doubtful about the costings of the linK you shared. But if true it seems this project is far more cost effective than the LHC and would have obvious human and commercial benefits.

 

[SkyWriting]

Faster than light particles found, claim scientists | Science | The Guardian

My physics friends are quite excited by some pretty big discoveries coming out of Gran Sasso.

If light speed is not the limit as relativistic physcis presupposes what implications does that have for our view of causality in the universe?

Being nearly mass-less I believe allows them some leniency.
Also, quantum entanglement provides instant communication
between two points separated by any distance. So there's that.

 

[shernren]

The only thing I have denigrated some scientists about is their arrogant certainty about things that cannot be confirmed by science e.g. Origins or remote cosmology.

Speculations about these matters have been proclaimed as facts.

My word, mindlight, you know exactly what things cannot be confirmed by science! I'm sure the list is not restricted to origins or remote cosmology, is it? You might want to tell the mathematicians whether Goldbach's conjecture or the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved by mathematics. You might also want to tell physicists whether superconductivity will ever be explained, or chemists whether they will be able to pin down the exact formula of Prussian blue. It would save us all a lot of time, but I highly doubt you'll be telling us any time soon.

"Science cannot confirm these things" is really one arrogantly certain comment about others. And why is it that you are not willing to say the same about the relativity deniers? After all, they seem arrogantly certain about the truth of their theories to me, too; the only difference being the subtle lack of that strangely rare commodity called evidence. But were someone to definitively confirm the neutrino result, you wouldn't be urging caution; you'd instead tell us that scientists are now entirely certain that they should never have been certain before.

 

[mindlight]

Being nearly mass-less I believe allows them some leniency.
Also, quantum entanglement provides instant communication
between two points separated by any distance. So there's that.

The results for me hold out a hope of faster than light travel to all those distant earth like worlds NASA keep discovering. Its a failure of vision really to say Einstein says we cannot. When meaningful communication or travel is possible between two points anything becomes possible.

 

[mindlight]

My word, mindlight, you know exactly what things cannot be confirmed by science! I'm sure the list is not restricted to origins or remote cosmology, is it? You might want to tell the mathematicians whether Goldbach's conjecture or the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved by mathematics. You might also want to tell physicists whether superconductivity will ever be explained, or chemists whether they will be able to pin down the exact formula of Prussian blue. It would save us all a lot of time, but I highly doubt you'll be telling us any time soon.

"Science cannot confirm these things" is really one arrogantly certain comment about others. And why is it that you are not willing to say the same about the relativity deniers? After all, they seem arrogantly certain about the truth of their theories to me, too; the only difference being the subtle lack of that strangely rare commodity called evidence. But were someone to definitively confirm the neutrino result, you wouldn't be urging caution; you'd instead tell us that scientists are now entirely certain that they should never have been certain before.

Science requires evidence and when that evidence is not of sufficient quality or is simply not available one cannot draw too strong a conclusion from it.

So I do not think anyone can speak too confidently about origins or the remote edges of the universe with any scientific authority.

However I am intrigued by the results coming out of the LHC.

 

[SkyWriting]

The results for me hold out a hope of faster than light travel to all those distant earth like worlds NASA keep discovering. Its a failure of vision really to say Einstein says we cannot. When meaningful communication or travel is possible between two points anything becomes possible.

It would be too hard on the body to be stretched out to infinity and back.
There is no hope of physical transportation. One would need to hold onto a bubble of "normal" space to avoid dissemblance.

Though quantum level communication is a possibility.
Death is your best bet. And way sooner.

 

[busterdog]

My word, mindlight, you know exactly what things cannot be confirmed by science! I'm sure the list is not restricted to origins or remote cosmology, is it? You might want to tell the mathematicians whether Goldbach's conjecture or the existence and uniqueness of solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations can be solved by mathematics. You might also want to tell physicists whether superconductivity will ever be explained, or chemists whether they will be able to pin down the exact formula of Prussian blue. It would save us all a lot of time, but I highly doubt you'll be telling us any time soon.

"Science cannot confirm these things" is really one arrogantly certain comment about others. And why is it that you are not willing to say the same about the relativity deniers? After all, they seem arrogantly certain about the truth of their theories to me, too; the only difference being the subtle lack of that strangely rare commodity called evidence. But were someone to definitively confirm the neutrino result, you wouldn't be urging caution; you'd instead tell us that scientists are now entirely certain that they should never have been certain before.

It only gets subtle when science needs to backpedal. Mindlinght had a simple and valid point. All I hear is homina homina homina from you guys when you get schooled yet again.

GSRindex

 

[Keachian]

Science backpedals? Sure our conclusions get reassessed based on new evidence if you want to call that backpedaling but I have yet to see creationist reassess their conclusions, its the same old science is the work of the devil, doctor gimme more meds.

Oh and yes I'm getting schooled, I'm being taught formal logics and language/automata theory, though seeing as it's just a theory it isn't factual, yet I seem to recall that computers were devised from the creation of automata theory, well obviously the information age that developed due to computers never happened because its just a theory.

 

[shernren]

All I hear is homina homina homina

Like many creationists you hear exactly what you want to, no more, no less.

 

[SkyWriting]

Like many creationists you hear exactly what you want to, no more, no less.

And your post, Shernren, illustrates a perfect mirror of the complaint.

 

[busterdog]

Always the witty rejoinders.

 

[shernren]

Always the studied ignorance of results that fail to support your views.

CERN Press Release

At the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto today, CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci presented results on the time of flight of neutrinos from CERN to the INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory on behalf of four experiments situated at Gran Sasso. The four, Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA all measure a neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light. This is at odds with a measurement that the OPERA collaboration put up for scrutiny last September, indicating that the original OPERA measurement can be attributed to a faulty element of the experiment’s fibre optic timing system.

 

[mindlight]

Always the studied ignorance of results that fail to support your views.

CERN Press Release

At the 25th International Conference on Neutrino Physics and Astrophysics in Kyoto today, CERN Research Director Sergio Bertolucci presented results on the time of flight of neutrinos from CERN to the INFN Gran Sasso Laboratory on behalf of four experiments situated at Gran Sasso. The four, Borexino, ICARUS, LVD and OPERA all measure a neutrino time of flight consistent with the speed of light. This is at odds with a measurement that the OPERA collaboration put up for scrutiny last September, indicating that the original OPERA measurement can be attributed to a faulty element of the experiment’s fibre optic timing system.

Yep we are still waiting for the results that overthrow Einstein and these were not them. But if Einsteins wrong then what?