The Age of the Universe

[Michael]

I meant, here in these forums

Maybe. I've never taken a poll.

<looks for substantiation of this opinion, so as to show it is not yet again a misrepresentation of the actual concept - see nothing>

See your own quote. How do you justify 'gravity' offsetting chemical energy in a "net zero energy" universe? You'll likely dodge that question I'm sure. Admitting that one's superhero's aren't 'perfect' is tough for some folks.

Category error. Seeing more or less of the stomach will not determine if it is digestion or not. One is a process, the other an object.

You're sort of missing the point IMO. The 'person to person contact' between human and "God" is typically from "awareness", to "awareness". I can't see my *own* "awareness", I can only experience it. Likewise I can't put God's awareness in a box for you, mostly because I have no idea how much of "God" might be visible to me from this particular vantage point.

Why? You don't. That "potential" is only opinion.

It's only your "opinion" that I don't.

 

[Michael]

There are ten articles on the first page.

Quote from each of them, all ten, where they disagree with me. Then we will move to page two.

Pretty much the entire field of robotics is based upon pattern recognition. I think you're stalling because you know that pattern recognition is an *integral* part of 'science'. It's not only *typical*, it's *common practice* in virtually every field of science.

 

[Davian]

Pretty <snip yet another move of the goalposts>

Are we done here?

 

[Davian]

Maybe. I've never taken a poll.



See your own quote. How do you justify 'gravity'

If you don't know how it is justified, asking me just proves it.

You're sort of missing the point IMO. <snip unrelated text>

No, I am just ignoring your fallacious arguments.

It's only your "opinion" that I don't.

Is my opinion holding you back from taking your god-thing-universe-whatever ideas to the scientific communities? Am I keeping you down?

 

[Michael]

Are we done here?

I don't know. Are you still in denial of the value of pattern recognition in science? Yes? No?

 

[Michael]

If you don't know how it is justified, asking me just proves it.

That was a complete dodge. There is no justification for it, and you simply can't handle it. I simply *rejected* the claim on pure logic. You are the one that cannot justify Hawking's claim from a post that you yourself added to this thread.

No, I am just ignoring your fallacious arguments.

It looks to me like you're ignoring all the uncomfortable (to you) questions and points entirely.

Is my opinion holding you back from taking your god-thing-universe-whatever ideas to the scientific communities? Am I keeping you down?

Nah, simply living in the 'dark ages' of astronomy is keeping me (and everyone else including you) down. You're not the problem.

 

[Davian]

I don't know. Are you still in denial of the value of pattern recognition in science? Yes? No?

780

 

[Michael]

780

I'm not required to quote anyone for you. The huge portion of the computer and robotics industry is based on pattern recognition, including biometric security systems, and huge chunks of robotics. Get real. Pattern recognition is an *integral* and an *important* aspect of science, and learning.

 

[Davian]

That was a complete dodge. There is no justification for it,

Perhaps if you were familiar with his work, you would know, if not accept, how he justifies it.

and you simply can't handle it.

It looks to me like you're ignoring all the uncomfortable (to you) questions and points entirely.

Dear Mr. Myan Reeder. It is best not assert how others think, particularly when you lack accuracy in it.

Nah, simply living in the 'dark ages' of astronomy is keeping me (and everyone else including you) down. You're not the problem.

It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market.

 

[Davian]

I'm <snip>

Provide the quotes, or retract.

780

 

[Michael]

Perhaps if you were familiar with his work, you would know, if not accept, how he justifies it.

There is no justification for his claims as it relates to chemistry, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise. You're simply *assuming* that he even addressed that issue.

Dear Mr. Myan Reeder. It is best not assert how others think, particularly when you lack accuracy in it.

And yet instead of *supporting* Hawking's (false) assertion about our universe having a net zero amount of energy, you keep running from my request to explain how gravity somehow offset's all forms of chemical energy. It doesn't.

It's not like it will affect the price of milk at the market.

You have point there actually. It does however affect the amount of public funding that is available for real experimentation with real processes.

 

[Michael]

Provide the quotes, or retract.

780

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=j0-gVeLHIYWzogSY8YXYDA&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA

First link:

The application of neural-network computers to pattern-recognition tasks is discussed in an introduction for advanced students

How does that jive with your claim:

Pattern recognition is poor science.

 

[Michael]

Or try the third link:

The area of pattern recognition and computer vision, after over 35 years of continued development, has now reached its maturity. The theories, techniques and algorithms are mostly well developed.

 

[Davian]

There is no justification for his claims as it relates to chemistry, and you cannot demonstrate otherwise. You're simply *assuming* that he even addressed that issue.

And yet instead of *supporting* Hawking's (false) assertion about our universe having a net zero amount of energy, you keep running from my request to explain how gravity somehow offset's all forms of chemical energy. It doesn't.

Again you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the subject. Reactions within an isolated system do not affect the net energy of the system.

Feel feel to reinforce that impression.

You have point there actually. It does however affect the amount of public funding that is available for real experimentation with real processes.

So it is the money you are after. That does explain your persistence, but I don't see how your posts here are going to get you anywhere with that.

 

[Davian]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...a=X&ei=j0-gVeLHIYWzogSY8YXYDA&ved=0CBwQgQMwAA

First link:



How does that jive with your claim:

Or try the third link:

"Tasks" are not science. Driving a car involves pattern recognition, but it is not science.

Keep going. I hope you can find something by the time we reach the fourth or fifth pages.

 

[Michael]

Again you demonstrate your unfamiliarity with the subject. Reactions within an isolated system do not affect the net energy of the system.

Gobbledygook on a stick. The net energy of the *entire* system is *necessarily* positive, or there would *be no chemical reaction* in the first place. Every use of energy *over time* also blows *holes* in your claims. You're trying to peddle a something from nothing scheme. There is a *net positive* amount of energy, and that net positive amount of energy changes forms many times. Gravity isn't even a form of *energy* in GR, it's a *geometric curvature* of spacetime that is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy. Hawking's whole claim is based on pure pseudoscience, and complete *kludge* of GR.

Feel feel to reinforce that impression.

Feel free to keep dodging the key issue, namely that I experience a *net positive* chemical energy release every time that I drive my car, and every time I feel the sunshine on my face.

It's the money you are after.

Me personally? No. Money for use in empirical science in general? Sure.

That does explain your persistence, but I don't see how your posts here are going to get you anywhere with that.

Well, it might wake a few folks up to the need to reevaluate the mainstream dogma. In your particular case, probably not.

You really shouldn't give me grief about strawman tactics after that whole "You're in it for the money' nonsense. Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

"Tasks" are not science. Driving a car involves pattern recognition, but it is not science.

Er, then why is it called computer "science"?

Keep going. I hope you can find something by the time we reach the fourth or fifth pages.

Why bother? You're obviously way out on a limb and you have nowhere to go except to fall. The whole field of biometric recognition is based upon pattern recognition. Get real.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Such as?

I do not know what this has to do with the subject of this thread but here is the link:

http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/12/27/who-wrote-the-gospel-of-matthew/

 

[joshua 1 9]

Did you do the same in regards to what scholars and historians can support with evidence in regards to the NT?

Of course.

 

[Davian]

Gobbledygook on a stick. The net energy of the *entire* system is *necessarily* positive, <snip>

That certainly does reinforce my impression of your knowledge on the subject.

Me personally? No. Money for use in empirical science in general? Sure.

Well, it might wake a few folks up to the need to reevaluate the mainstream dogma.

Do you seriously think those folks that matter will see your posts, here?

lol.

In your particular case, probably not.

My money is already spent, thanks.

You really shouldn't give me grief about strawman tactics

I do not see why not. At least you do own up to them.