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

[Kaon]

Could you tell me please what scientific qualifications you have?

I am a mathematician. But, it shouldn't matter; we should have the transparency or reproducibility, at least, before we demand acceptance.

This is a reason why classical physics dominates the technology applications we use; it is reproducible and verifiable. When academia is no longer handicapped by its applied logic, it will progress from this stagnation point, and QM, for example, will be as elegantly applied to our technological innovations as electrodynamics.

We still use combustion for weapons and travel...

 

[Kylie]

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

Please show me how you determined that this is the sense that was intended by the people who wrote the Bible.

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).

Of course, I'm asking for AV's opinion, and he's made it clear that he considers the King James Bible to be the authoritative version.

 

[Kylie]

I am a mathematician. But, it shouldn't matter; we should have the transparency or reproducibility, at least, before we demand acceptance.

This is a reason why classical physics dominates the technology applications we use; it is reproducible and verifiable. When academia is no longer handicapped by its applied logic, it will progress from this stagnation point, and QM, for example, will be as elegantly applied to our technological innovations as electrodynamics.

We still use combustion for weapons and travel...

Do you have any relevant qualifications to talk about this subject as an authority?

 

[Kaon]

Do you have any relevant qualifications to talk about this subject as an authority?

Yes, but I am not listing them, and I am not speaking as an academic on these forums. My very critique about this stagnation point is academia is only concerned with hearing what people have to say who have letters before and after their name. You disqualify progress with that type of attitude.

It is a fraternity.

Again: do you believe we should be able to reproduce a theory in a laboratory before we impress the expectation of acceptance on the general public or our peers? Are you going to comment on this point?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, but I am not listing them, and I am not speaking as an academic on these forums. My very critique about this stagnation point is academia is only concerned with hearing what people have to say who have letters before and after their name. You disqualify progress with that type of attitude.

It is a fraternity.

Again: do you believe we should be able to reproduce a theory in a laboratory before we impress the expectation of acceptance on the general public or our peers? Are you going to comment on this point?

Why would you not want to say what your qualifications are? Why don't you say, "I have a doctorate in cosmology" or something of that sort?

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

You had no trouble understanding my post, although it was composed of a multiplicity of bits, that formed letters, that were parts of words, that were combined into sentences. That is a close analogy for what is done in science. Constructing the entire dynamic universe would offer nothing of practical value for a wide range of scientific fields.
Your claim that science is stagnant is too laughable to do anything more than laugh at it.

 

[Kaon]

Why would you not want to say what your qualifications are? Why don't you say, "I have a doctorate in cosmology" or something of that sort?

Because it doesn't matter, or It shouldn't matter.

I am not going to entertain a strawman: you know the questions I posed, and the direction of my position. I asked you a specific question that was germane to this thread: do you agree that theory should be reproducible in the lab before we impose a demand of acceptance onto the layperson , or our peers?

That doesn't require credentials to ask, or answer.

 

[Kaon]

You had no trouble understanding my post, although it was composed of a multiplicity of bits, that formed letters, that were parts of words, that were combined into sentences. That is a close analogy for what is done in science. Constructing the entire dynamic universe would offer nothing of practical value for a wide range of scientific fields.
Your claim that science is stagnant is too laughable to do anything more than laugh at it.

Of course it would be practical to be able to reproduce the system we claim to know about. It would be irresponsible for us to come up with theory that we can't back up - and only extrapolate through more theory we cannot reproduce in the lab. As I said, this is why classical mechanics is responsible for most all the inventions and innovations. The stagnation point you can't see is critical.

Your scoffing is also an example of the exact reason why academia is stagnant, and generally on an erroneous track. You can't see it because of hauteur, and a general myopia to something outside of academia. I completely understand it.

 

[Speedwell]

Because it doesn't matter, or It shouldn't matter.

I am not going to entertain a strawman: you know the questions I posed, and the direction of my position. I asked you a specific question that was germane to this thread: do you agree that theory should be reproducible in the lab before we impose a demand of acceptance onto the layperson , or our peers?

That doesn't require credentials to ask, or answer.

Who is imposing a demand of acceptance?

 

[Kaon]

Who is imposing a demand of acceptance?

Academics. Laypersons. Professionals. Athletes. Criminals. Everyone who wants to be socially and academically accepted, for example.

It is a paradigm of behavior, and a psychology, not a "who" - unless you count the dymanic society as an entity.

 

[Ophiolite]

Of course it would be practical to be able to reproduce the system we claim to know about. It would be irresponsible for us to come up with theory that we can't back up - and only extrapolate through more theory we cannot reproduce in the lab. As I said, this is why classical mechanics is responsible for most all the inventions and innovations. The stagnation point you can't see is critical.

Your scoffing is also an example of the exact reason why academia is stagnant, and generally on an erroneous track. You can't see it because of hauteur, and a general myopia to something outside of academia. I completely understand it.

Then please, go ahead and enlighten me. Rather than these rhetorical, but empty assertions give me something specific. Please detail in what way our inability to "recreate an entire dynamic universe in a lab" would limit our understanding of:

• The origin of basalts
• Greenschist facies metamorphism
• Initiation of subduction
• Mitochondrial biogenesis
• Evolution of artiodactyls
• Relationship of deep ocean anoxia to Ediacaran biota extinction

 

[Kylie]

Because it doesn't matter, or It shouldn't matter.

I am not going to entertain a strawman: you know the questions I posed, and the direction of my position. I asked you a specific question that was germane to this thread: do you agree that theory should be reproducible in the lab before we impose a demand of acceptance onto the layperson , or our peers?

That doesn't require credentials to ask, or answer.

Your credentials on the subject are important. Otherwise you could just be someone who's asking questions that are not actually relevant, just trying to sound knowledgeable. Like someone spouting on about how different paint types on cars affect the aerodynamics, so you have to choose the correct paint.

In this case, you are going on about reproducing things in a lab as though that's the only way of checking things we have.

So, I have my doubts about your capacity to engage in a rational discussion about this, and until such time as you can demonstrate that you have any qualifications on this subject, I'm going to go with the people in the world who actually do have demonstrable qualifications and expertise on how the universe works. Because if you have no qualifications, why should I pay attention to you when you say the experts are wrong? Maybe, just maybe, they know more about this subject than you do.

 

[Kaon]

Then please, go ahead and enlighten me. Rather than these rhetorical, but empty assertions give me something specific. Please detail in what way our inability to "recreate an entire dynamic universe in a lab" would limit our understanding of:

• The origin of basalts
• Greenschist facies metamorphism
• Initiation of subduction
• Mitochondrial biogenesis
• Evolution of artiodactyls
• Relationship of deep ocean anoxia to Ediacaran biota extinction

No.

If what I have said is empty to you, then why would you want to hear more ineptitude?

 

[Kaon]

Your credentials on the subject are important. Otherwise you could just be someone who's asking questions that are not actually relevant, just trying to sound knowledgeable. Like someone spouting on about how different paint types on cars affect the aerodynamics, so you have to choose the correct paint.

In this case, you are going on about reproducing things in a lab as though that's the only way of checking things we have.

So, I have my doubts about your capacity to engage in a rational discussion about this, and until such time as you can demonstrate that you have any qualifications on this subject, I'm going to go with the people in the world who actually do have demonstrable qualifications and expertise on how the universe works. Because if you have no qualifications, why should I pay attention to you when you say the experts are wrong? Maybe, just maybe, they know more about this subject than you do.

Ok.

 

[Ophiolite]

No.

If what I have said is empty to you, then why would you want to hear more ineptitude?

I am open minded. I am ready to be convinced, but that requires specifics, not what you have offered so far, which appears to be so much hand waving. Hard, rigorous arguments, supported by sound evidence will convince me otherwise.

 

[Speedwell]

Academics. Laypersons. Professionals. Athletes. Criminals. Everyone who wants to be socially and academically accepted, for example.

It is a paradigm of behavior, and a psychology, not a "who" - unless you count the dymanic society as an entity.

Must have missed the memo. No one is imposing a demand to accept the theory of evolution on me.

The theory of evolution--any scientific theory, for that matter--is merely an attempt to explain a natural phenomenon, based on the facts we have been able to gather about it. It will stand or fall as more data is accumulated, but at the present time it appears plausible and there is no competing explanation of any substance. That is the extent to which I accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Kaon]

I am open minded. I am ready to be convinced, but that requires specifics, not what you have offered so far, which appears to be so much hand waving. Hard, rigorous arguments, supported by sound evidence will convince me otherwise.

Ok.

 

[Kaon]

Must have missed the memo. No one is imposing a demand to accept the theory of evolution on me.

The theory of evolution--any scientific theory, for that matter--is merely an attempt to explain a natural phenomenon, based on the facts we have been able to gather about it. It will stand or fall as more data is accumulated, but at the present time it appears plausible and there is no competing explanation of any substance. That is the extent to which I accept the theory of evolution.

That is your prerogative as a sovereign human to believe the theory of evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok.

Does that mean you are going to respond to my request?

 

[Speedwell]

That is your prerogative as a sovereign human to believe the theory of evolution.

But your point was that belief was being demanded of us, was it not?