My Daffy Duck Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Take me for instance.

Say I held to the idea that there are only 100 elements in the Periodic Table.

I'd be behind the times, wouldn't I?

Kinda daft?

Or say I refused to accept heliocentrism vis-à-vis geocentrism, combustion vis-à-vis phlogiston, or chemistry vis-à-vis alchemy?

I'd be daft, wouldn't I?

Here's my challenge:

What if I refused to accept electroweak force vis-à-vis electromagnetism/weak nuclear force?

 

[pgp_protector]

Forum rules prevent me from telling you what I really think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forum rules prevent me from telling you what I really think.

They don't bother me.

If my neighbors still want to consider electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force as two distinct forces, then let them live in the past.

But when they finally merge all three of those forces into one unified force theory, I don't want to hear them bragging about how science has progressed over time.

 

[durangodawood]

They don't bother me.

If my neighbors still want to consider electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force as two distinct forces, then let them live in the past.

But when they finally merge all three of those forces into one unified force theory, I don't want to hear them bragging about how science has progressed over time.

If our understanding of the world has improved, then thats progress.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Take me for instance.

Say I held to the idea that there are only 100 elements in the Periodic Table.

I'd be behind the times, wouldn't I?

Kinda daft?

Or say I refused to accept heliocentrism vis-à-vis geocentrism, combustion vis-à-vis phlogiston, or chemistry vis-à-vis alchemy?

I'd be daft, wouldn't I?

Here's my challenge:

What if I refused to accept electroweak force vis-à-vis electromagnetism/weak nuclear force?

I'd ask you to remind us all of your much vaunted Boolean Standards. Why don't you tell us what you'd think of yourself?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't you tell us what you'd think of yourself?

I prefer the four-forces paradigm.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

 

[sjastro]

Here's my challenge:

What if I refused to accept electroweak force vis-à-vis electromagnetism/weak nuclear force?

You must issues with the SU(2) x U(1) symmetry group.
Explain why this is problematical.

 

[AV1611VET]

You must issues with the SU(2) x U(1) symmetry group.
Explain why this is problematical.

Are you talking to me?

If so, I have no problem with all that stuff at all.

I think it's neat they have recognized four (now three) major forces in the universe.

I think it's neater though, when God steps in with a miracle, and those four forces obey Him.

My pastor points out that, in this passage:

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

... that "shout" is the shout of "STAND ASIDE!"

And gravity is going to move over and lets us by.

 

[sjastro]

Are you talking to me?

If so, I have no problem with all that stuff at all.

I think it's neat they have recognized four (now three) major forces in the universe.

I think it's neater though, when God steps in with a miracle, and those four forces obey Him.

My pastor points out that, in this passage:

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

... that "shout" is the shout of "STAND ASIDE!"

And gravity is going to move over and lets us by.

Listen Travis Bickle, the electroweak force was recombined after a 14 billion year absence (assuming no other alien civilization performed the same feat) by UA(1) and UA(2) which was no miracle.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I prefer the four-forces paradigm.

That's not what your Boolean Standards advocate. Are you (once again) throwing out your own rock-solid standard? Wonders will never cease.

 

[AV1611VET]

Listen Travis Bickle, the electroweak force was recombined after a 14 billion year absence (assuming no other alien civilization performed the same feat) by UA(1) and UA(2) which was no miracle.

Are you agreeing with me -- or disagreeing?

You're talking over my head.

Once upon a time, there were four forces in the universe recognized.

They were: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force.

Then academia was able to merge electromagnetism with the weak nuclear force.

Now there are three forces in the universe recognized.

They are: gravity, electroweak, strong nuclear force.

Right?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not what your Boolean Standards advocate.

You mean these?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Which one says the four forces of the universe contradict the Bible?

If none do, then I vote we go with Number Four.

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

But you can run a FIND on those forces in your Bible if you don't believe me.

It's called "research".

Try it sometime.

It might make you look good.

Are you (once again) throwing out your own rock-solid standard?

No.

Do I look like I am?

Wonders will never cease.

Guess what?

Are you ready for this?

I also believe in things like Boyle's Law, thermodynamics, thin layer chromatography, microevolution, light as both a particle and a wave, grid leak bias, Brownian motion and a host of other things.

And guess what?

My "rock solid standards" are still rock solid.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You mean these?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

Which one says the four forces of the universe contradict the Bible?

If none do, then I vote we go with Number Four.

4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x

But you can run a FIND on those forces in your Bible if you don't believe me.

It's called "research".

Try it sometime.

It might make you look good.
No.

Do I look like I am?Guess what?

Are you ready for this?

I also believe in things like Boyle's Law, thermodynamics, thin layer chromatography, microevolution, light as both a particle and a wave, grid leak bias, Brownian motion and a host of other things.

And guess what?

My "rock solid standards" are still rock solid.

Let's get this straight. Science says x, so go with x, right?

Science says there are currently 4 known forces, but at an early state of the universe 2 of those forces were merged into a single force.
AV says either there are 4 forces or there are 3 forces. You can't have it both ways.

Boolean standard 4 is not being upheld, is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science says there are currently 4 known forces, but at an early state of the universe 2 of those forces were merged into a single force.

Yup -- you're right.

Interesting.

Electroweak came BEFORE and was split later.

In particle physics, the electroweak interaction or electroweak force is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force.

SOURCE

My bad.

 

[driewerf]

Take me for instance.

Say I held to the idea that there are only 100 elements in the Periodic Table.

I'd be behind the times, wouldn't I?

Kinda daft?

Or say I refused to accept heliocentrism vis-à-vis geocentrism, combustion vis-à-vis phlogiston, or chemistry vis-à-vis alchemy?

I'd be daft, wouldn't I?

Here's my challenge:

What if I refused to accept electroweak force vis-à-vis electromagnetism/weak nuclear force?

Nobody cares if you accept or reject these things.

As I explain in this essay , the damaging influence of creationists is not so much what they believe, but why, and how they argue against good valid science.
If you – or someone else -can come with very good scientific sound, empirically validated reasons why the electroweak model is wrong, then I am quite confident all physicists will pay attention.
Despite trying to sound “sciency”, all creationist arguments fall in one of the following categories:
• Argument from incredulity (“I just can’t believe”)
• Argument from authority (either a prominent creationist or the bible – see your very own Boolean standards)
• Handwaving evidence away or down talking science (“They just guess”, “They weren’t there”)
• Poisoning the well (See “atheistic evolution”).
In the end it is the scientific method and the reliability of science itself that is at stake. One solitary nay-sayer can’t do harm. But once a critical mass is reached, when science deniers get elected in school boards and influence educational curricula, or when politicians feel the pressure to cut back research programs, because they hurt the precious, delicate feelings of creationists, then there is real life damage.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you – or someone else -can come with very good scientific sound, empirically validated reasons why the electroweak model is wrong, then I am quite confident all physicists will pay attention.

Did I say it was wrong?

Read Post 9 again please.

Specifically this part:

If so, I have no problem with all that stuff at all.

I think it's neat they have recognized four (now three) major forces in the universe.

 

[driewerf]

Did I say it was wrong?

Read Post 9 again please.

Specifically this part:

That was a hypothetical.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the end it is the scientific method and the reliability of science itself that is at stake. One solitary nay-sayer can’t do harm. But once a critical mass is reached, when science deniers get elected in school boards and influence educational curricula, or when politicians feel the pressure to cut back research programs, because they hurt the precious, delicate feelings of creationists, then there is real life damage.

1. This isn't a technocracy we live in, and no one is trying to steampunk science.
2. We don't stand in the way of technological advancements, so we're not harming anyone or stunting the growth of their research.
3. A teacher that teaches we came from Adam, and not Magilla Gorilla, isn't going to prevent one of her students from going on to hybridize winter wheat or the edible banana, find oil, square a circle, or anything else that is pending discovery.

Look at how far creationists, from the monotheistic Jews and Arabs to [yes, even] the polytheistic Egyptians, brought us in science.

Now, for some reason, people think we have to eject God from the halls of academia, or we can't progress any further.

And that's just wrong.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Now, for some reason, people think we have to eject God from the halls of academia, or we can't progress any further.

And that's just wrong.

You do know that academia covers a lot more than just science, right? Can you show us people thinking we need to eject God from the halls of Theology?

But if we just look at the "halls of science" - God does not need to be ejected for the simple reason that God is not present. Nor is Vishnu/Thor/Paptuanuku or any other supernatural entity. You cannot eject something that is not there to start with.