Science Proves Creation

[HARK!]

Which specific part?

It's a logical argument, presented as a whole.

 

[Kylie]

The cases I speak of ARE anecdotes; but that's irrelevant. I'll reiterate the point, since it seems that slipped by you the first time.

If a Law does not apply at all time; it's not a Law. It can be nothing more than a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, good guess.

And if you have nothing but anecdotes to claim that the law does not apply all the time, then you have failed. Anecdotes are not evidence.

Again every Newtonian law has caved in QM experiments.

Newton's laws state:

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion will remain in that state of motion unless an external force acts on it.
2. Force equals mass times acceleration.
3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I have already explained how these have been replaced by General Relativity, but we still use them because they give results that are very close to correct and are much easier to work with.

If you are talking about other laws, then you are not talking about Newtonian laws.

I saw a really simple one which involved an internal combustion engine. If you feed the engine more fuel it would reason that it would turn faster. This can be calculated using laws of science; but upon closer inspection there are nodes in in the RPM band, where the plane bearing of the crank shaft, instead of acting as a place bearing, and spinning; the crank rolls on the outer bearing. This causes a significant drop in efficiency. One would never notice theses nodes by making a natural sweep in acceleration; but in a tightly controlled situation this phenomenon can be made apparent. The fact is that these nodes occur in every engine; and effect the truly accurate calculations for HP. Until recently these factors were unknown.

This is a very basic example that most people can understand; but there are seemingly endless factors that science in unaware of.

Your explanation is unclear, could you provide a source?

 

[Kylie]

I already made my point; before you presented your nonsensical challenge.

Your point seems to be that you don't understand what Newtonian laws are.

 

[Kylie]

It's a logical argument, presented as a whole.

If you say so. It certainly doesn't appear that way to me, or to others, as demonstrated in posts 4, 5, 7, 9, 16, 17, et al.

 

[HARK!]

Your point seems to be that you don't understand what Newtonian laws are.

Newtonian laws?

I was talking about Newtonian Physics. Apparently you didn't understand what I was talking about. I even gave examples.

Please try to pay close attention to what I actually say, instead of letting your imagination tell you what I'm saying.

 

[Kylie]

Newtonian laws?

I was talking about Newtonian Physics. Apparently you didn't understand what I was talking about. I even gave examples.

Please try to pay close attention to what I actually say, instead of letting your imagination tell you what I'm saying.

Do you mean classical mechanics?

How about you provide a source to show me exactly what you mean?

 

[Shemjaza]

Shemjaza: What evidence?

HARK!: the empirical evidence

That isn't providing evidence, it's merely repeating that it exists... which I dispute.

Also you seem to be avoiding commenting on relativity, space and time? These are concepts that oppose your insistence that Newtonian Mechanics are universal.

 

[Ken-1122]

Have you ever thought the dictionary definition may need updating? Words can change meaning over time.

If the words have changed, what's the new term for "All that exists?" And what does Universe mean now?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If the words have changed, what's the new term for "All that exists?"

Why does such a word have to exist?

 

[Ophiolite]

Again every Newtonian law has caved in QM experiments.

I saw a really simple one which involved an internal combustion engine. If you feed the engine more fuel it would reason that it would turn faster. This can be calculated using laws of science; but upon closer inspection there are nodes in in the RPM band, where the plane bearing of the crank shaft, instead of acting as a place bearing, and spinning; the crank rolls on the outer bearing. This causes a significant drop in efficiency. One would never notice theses nodes by making a natural sweep in acceleration; but in a tightly controlled situation this phenomenon can be made apparent. The fact is that these nodes occur in every engine; and effect the truly accurate calculations for HP. Until recently these factors were unknown.

1. Please provide a citation for the IC engine effect you mention.
2. Are you asserting that this effect is a consequence of quantum mechanics?

 

[Ken-1122]

Why does such a word have to exist?

Because once something is given a name, as long as it exist; it must always have a name.

 

[HARK!]

How about you provide a source to show me exactly what you mean?

I read about that example nearly 30 years ago.

Here's another one: Quantum Destabilization of a Water Sandwich – Laws of Classical Physics Break Down

 

[Ophiolite]

Because once something is given a name, as long as it exist; it must always have a name.

Most nouns have multiple meanings. Context typically points to which is applicable. "Universe" works fine, in everyday conversations, for "all that exists". You really do seem to have got, unnecessarily, your undergarments in a topological extravaganza over this.

 

[HARK!]

What evidence?

Again, the empirical evidence. Have you ever looked at the night sky? There are a limited number of stars. This limits the amount of visible light. Again EMR radiates in three dimensions. Stars have a limited life span. If there were unlimited stars stars; there would be unlimited light, therefore light gain; until all of the stars had reached their lifespan. Even then, visible light would continue to travel through the entirety of infinite space. This is not the case. EMR cannot be infinite, while simultaneously finite; as it would violate the LNC.

You still haven't acknowledged that space and time can be distorted by gravity and relative velocity.

So?

 

[HARK!]

How about you actually make your point.

I've made my points.

And how about you address all the other parts of my post which you ignored?

Which part did I ignore? Do you mean your insult? To what purpose?

 

[Ophiolite]

I've made my points.

For your information your points are not at all obvious. Since you felt it important to make them in the first place, perhaps you would like to have another go at communicating them, for it obviously hasn't worked too well.

 

[HARK!]

For your information your points are not at all obvious. Since you felt it important to make them in the first place, perhaps you would like to have another go at communicating them, for it obviously hasn't worked too well.

For which points do you need clarification?

 

[Ophiolite]

For which points do you need clarification?

I cannot even detect a clear point in your posts. The signal to noise ratio is barely detectable. Just present your central point in summary, in a paragraph; multiple paragraphs, if there are multiple points.

 

[HARK!]

I cannot even detect a clear point in your posts. The signal to noise ratio is barely detectable. Just present your central point in summary, in a paragraph; multiple paragraphs, if there are multiple points.

Again, I made my point in the OP. What part of the OP are you still struggling with?

 

[Ophiolite]

Again, I made my point in the OP. What part of the OP are you still struggling with?

I entered the thread some distance in. Your posts then seemed in coherent. I have attempted to read your OP, but stopped after your two axioms. I repeat them here for the benefit of other readers:

1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.

Your first axiom is unsound, containing as it does a false statement. Matter and energy can both be infinite in an infinite universe. This does not require, as you think, that this would require an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass. That is an egregious error on your part.
Space may well be infinite, but it need not be so. You support for both axioms are examples of the logical flaw, Argument from Ignorance.

It is now clear to me why none of your later posts made sense: they were based on faulty axioms. Please don't waste your time representing your arguments for the validity of the axioms. They are not and never can be valid. I'll try to remember to avoid the thread in future in order not to take up any more of your time.