Moon light - the word of God vs falsely so called science

[Kylie]

Can the universe be recreated in the lab such that it's dynamics can be measured and reproduced in a precise way that models our known universe?

Can we do this with Earth?

Running the experiment again is only one way of checking things. There are others.

We can create models - ideas of how the universe works. These models can indicate to us things we haven't yet found. If we then find those thing in the real world, then that is evidence that the model is correct.

 

[AV1611VET]

Running the experiment again is only one way of checking things. There are others.

We can create models - ideas of how the universe works. These models can indicate to us things we haven't yet found. If we then find those thing in the real world, then that is evidence that the model is correct.

How far back in time can the universe be reverse engineered analogically (i.e., not digitally)?

 

[Kaon]

This can be done for portions of the universe and is done so across probably all fields of science. Without this capacity we should be much further behind in our understanding.

Can the entire dynamic universe be recreated in a lab such that we can model the past, and current scientific postulates in the lab - and check the strength of our assertions?

Analyzing a part of a dynamical system, and then extrapolating it without reproducing the dynamical system in a lab is what we are doing now, and it's why science is stagnant.

 

[Kylie]

How far back in time can the universe be reverse engineered analogically (i.e., not digitally)?

Not sure what you're asking here.

Scientists model the processes of things. They model the processes that govern how stars form from gas clouds, for example. The model doesn't say when the star will form, but it does describe how the gas cloud changes into the star.

 

[Kaon]

Running the experiment again is only one way of checking things. There are others.

We can create models - ideas of how the universe works. These models can indicate to us things we haven't yet found. If we then find those thing in the real world, then that is evidence that the model is correct.

Can the entire dynamic universe be recreated in a lab such that we can model the past, and current scientific postulates in the lab - and check the strength of our assertions?

Every second we spend on postulating a dynamical system we cannot reproduce, the actual dynamical system is changing.

What we do now is rudimentary guessing at best in physics; it should be clear that accuracy depends on the image of the output and study: If the evidence we use to determine a cosmos we can't model in the lab is evidence, then we will stay right where we are for another 40 years while scientists try to figure out why physical and philosophical connections are wearing down, and why our postulates are turning out wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure what you're asking here.

If everything suddenly stopped and started moving backwards ... back to the Beelzebang Incident ... how far back could they go before they encountered a glitch?

 

[Kaon]

Not sure what you're asking here.

Scientists model the processes of things. They model the processes that govern how stars form from gas clouds, for example. The model doesn't say when the star will form, but it does describe how the gas cloud changes into the star.

This isn't accuracy or precision unless you choose how much error is acceptable.

How can anyone say with a straight face that a dynamical system that is nearly as old as the universe can be modelled by humans to extrapolate and interpolate the history and future of the dynamical system - especially without reproducing the system in a lab to study perturbations and erroneous hypothesis in parameterized real time, and allowing layperson to check those by reproducing the experiment.

Money has made academia inorganic, which is why the world is still stuck with quantum mechanics that cant unity fundamental (because of erroneous assumptions that cannot go checked by layperson or academic,) or properly juxtaposition the classical topics which work well (like relativity).

And, we will stay in this iteration of degenerate science until attitude and approaches change. At this rate, the entire institution would have to fall.

 

[Kylie]

Can the entire dynamic universe be recreated in a lab such that we can model the past, and current scientific postulates in the lab - and check the strength of our assertions?

Every second we spend on postulating a dynamical system we cannot reproduce, the actual dynamical system is changing.

What we do now is rudimentary guessing at best in physics; it should be clear that accuracy depends on the image of the output and study: If the evidence we use to determine a cosmos we can't model in the lab is evidence, then we will stay right where we are for another 40 years while scientists try to figure out why physical and philosophical connections are wearing down, and why our postulates are turning out wrong.

Are you suggesting that our understanding of the universe hasn't improved for 40 years?

 

[Kylie]

If everything suddenly stopped and started moving backwards ... back to the Beelzebang Incident ... how far back could they go before they encountered a glitch?

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "model."

It's not a second-by-second description of what happens in the universe.

 

[Kylie]

This isn't accuracy or precision unless you choose how much error is acceptable.

How can anyone say with a straight face that a dynamical system that is nearly as old as the universe can be modelled by humans to extrapolate and interpolate the history and future of the dynamical system - especially without reproducing the system in a lab to study perturbations and erroneous hypothesis in parameterized real time, and allowing layperson to check those by reproducing the experiment.

Money has made academia inorganic, which is why the world is still stuck with quantum mechanics that cant unity fundamental (because of erroneous assumptions that cannot go checked by layperson or academic,) or properly juxtaposition the classical topics which work well (like relativity).

And, we will stay in this iteration of degenerate science until attitude and approaches change. At this rate, the entire institution would have to fall.

I was clearly not talking about a single model that accounts for every single thing in the universe over the entire time the universe has existed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "model."

It's not a second-by-second description of what happens in the universe.

Then it's not analog, is it?

It's digital ... has missing links.

Go figure.

 

[Kylie]

Then it's not analog, is it?

It's digital ... has missing links.

Go figure.

Why do you think that a scientific model has to account for every single event?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do you think that a scientific model has to account for every single event?

Because one should expect gaps to appear, if one believes like I do that academia arbitrarily moves the decimal place as needed.

For example, if a star suddenly showed up in the night sky that was a zillion miles away, academia would move the decimal point as needed from 14.7 billion to 1 zillion.

Even though they can't account for anything that occurred in that huge gap, they would expect us to agree with them.

 

[Kylie]

Because one should expect gaps to appear, if one believes like I do that academia arbitrarily moves the decimal place as needed.

For example, if a star suddenly showed up in the night sky that was a zillion miles away, academia would move the decimal point as needed from 14.7 billion to 1 zillion.

Even though they can't account for anything that occurred in that huge gap, they would expect us to agree with them.

Can you show me a real world example of that actually happening?

In any case, you haven't answered my earlier question. Do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of your boolean standards in post 218?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you show me a real world example of that actually happening?

What is the age of the universe based on then?

In any case, you haven't answered my earlier question. Do you agree or disagree with my interpretation of your boolean standards in post 218?

I'm getting off that hobbyhorse.

Not until I see a light bulb come on.

 

[Kaon]

Are you suggesting that our understanding of the universe hasn't improved for 40 years?

Absolutely. More precisely, our understanding of the universe is rudimentary at best, because we cannot even begin to create a similar dynamical system to 1) test our hypothesis (including mathematics), and 2) reproduce the same system (universe) based on our theory. We are guessing with clever mathematical analysis to supplement the concepts we can't actually tangibly verify.

That is why I said it comes down to how much error someone is willing to accept. If you ignore that we cannot reproduce a universe dynamical system to test it against our theory, then of course we think we know about the universe. But, that is an illusion; the physics and math is wrong, and academia isn't accepting new models, as it were. The stagnation point has been hit because there needs to be a paradigm change in academia itself.

 

[Kaon]

I was clearly not talking about a single model that accounts for every single thing in the universe over the entire time the universe has existed.

Well, then we aren't actually talking about science when we talk about what we know of the universe - we are talking philosophy. How can we say we "know" something scientifically when we don't even follow our own rules of science - namely, 1) reproducibility, and 2) verification by a layperson/3rd party.

The fraternity and politics of academia have caused it to reach a stagnation point. The technology industries aren't necessarily handicapped by the "logic" of academia, and experiments are often reproduced despite their apparent impossibility (for the purposes of apply the research to something workable).

 

[Kylie]

What is the age of the universe based on then?

How Do We Know The Age Of The Universe?

I'm getting off that hobbyhorse.

Not until I see a light bulb come on.

It's a simple question, AV. Why can't you answer?

 

[Kylie]

Absolutely. More precisely, our understanding of the universe is rudimentary at best, because we cannot even begin to create a similar dynamical system to 1) test our hypothesis (including mathematics), and 2) reproduce the same system (universe) based on our theory. We are guessing with clever mathematical analysis to supplement the concepts we can't actually tangibly verify.

That is why I said it comes down to how much error someone is willing to accept. If you ignore that we cannot reproduce a universe dynamical system to test it against our theory, then of course we think we know about the universe. But, that is an illusion; the physics and math is wrong, and academia isn't accepting new models, as it were. The stagnation point has been hit because there needs to be a paradigm change in academia itself.

Could you tell me please what scientific qualifications you have?

 

[Radagast]

But the Bible just says that they are lights.

In the sense that photons come off the surface. What's your point?

Does the Bible say anything about the moon having gender?

Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

Isaiah 13:10 (ESV): For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.

In the original Hebrew, of course, "moon" is masculine (although feminine in the Greek Septuagint and in French translation).