- Jul 28, 2021
- 701
- 103
- 56
- Country
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
well i pointed you to the source where you can find the answers to both in my first response, but you don't seem to bother
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
well i pointed you to the source where you can find the answers to both in my first response, but you don't seem to botherAs you did not answer both requests for the first time of asking I though one thing at a time would be easier for you.
It does show that you basing your personal conclusions on information that you admit to not understanding.That I don't have all the technical insights to respond to these objections while Barry is struggling with health issues so he's not able to address all my questions doesn't mean it's "thoroughly debunked".
From the haughty position of "QED and a gravity formed universe are the absolute truth" it would indeed seem so...His work is renowned garbage.
I was getting answers and explanation from Barry, but as said that is currently not possible.It does show that you basing your personal conclusions on information that you admit to not understanding.
The source (that you admit to not understanding) has be debunked as was shown to you up thread by that renowned brain box @sjastro.well i pointed you to the source where you can find the answers to both in my first response, but you don't seem to bother
Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.I was getting answers and explanation from Barry, but as said that is currently not possible.
Would you say that 'understanding' something is binary, or a spectrum?Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.
That I'm not fully educated on QED doesn't mean I do understand enough about SED to make some conclusions about Setterfield's theory.Which does not change the fact that you are basing your conclusions on things that you do not understand.
Yes it does.That I'm not fully educated on QED doesn't mean I do understand enough about SED to make some conclusions about Setterfield's theory.
Without going into the mathematical detail behind Setterfield's model it has a fundamental flaw by assuming YEC is correct and the model is designed to suit, this is not how science is done.That I don't have all the technical insights to respond to these objections while Barry is struggling with health issues so he's not able to address all my questions doesn't mean it's "thoroughly debunked".
It is true there are still some issues, specifically some mathimatical, that need further investigation, but the overal theory is pretty solid.
But of course, by arguning from a position that "QED is the absolute truth" (like insisting ZPE is not what SED assumes it to be) you will always find ways to argue his theory is total nonsense...
This equation is the average energy of the quantum harmonic oscillator introduced in this post.In short, Planck was pretty dissatisfied with his constant being a mathematical fudge factor with no foundation in reality, so he came with a theory about that in 1911, proposing the ZPE as a real energy field, intrinsic to the universe and adjusting his equation accordingly with good results.
View attachment 355998
This is a false strawman... Setterfield was originally OEC, but changed his positions because of his study on astronomical anomalies.it has a fundamental flaw by assuming YEC is correct and the model is designed to suit, this is not how science is done.
This comparison is moot because these two theories are not very comparable...Here is the comparison of the two.
He did consider it to be an intrinsic property of the vacuumin 1911 Planck did not understand the physical meaning of the equation
I would have thought the Bible would have been source of inspiration for conversion to YEC.This is a false strawman... Setterfield was originally OEC, but changed his positions because of his study on astronomical anomalies.
Which was the point I was making if you design a ‘theory’ to satisfy YEC where the evidence is irrelevant, then it is not surprising to have 'theories' designed for YEC being incomparable.This comparison is moot because these two theories are not very comparable...
This is complete nonsense here are some examples to refute this.You also provide some incorrect assertions on Setterfields theory, in short...
1. Along with changes in the speed of light Setterfields theory predicts parallel (some inversely proportionate) changes to the other fundamental "constants" which cancels out the negative effects in the equations that are brought as argument against his theory. There is absolutely no mention of "mayor changes to physical laws", this, again, is a false strawman...
And here we do have a strawman in operation as I never stated or implied such a comment.2. "Setterfied breaks with established physics"... Really? How dare he! None of the great pioneers of science would have dared to do such a blasphemous thing!
On the contrary a faster lightspeed does have an effect on plasma physics as εₒ μₒ can have smaller values.3. The proposed faster development of galaxies and celestial objects has nothing to do with faster lightspeed but rather with Plasma physics. This shows you only have a superficial understanding of this theory, or possibly you are only focused on certain areas of this theory (only those which are helpful in your line of attack).
There is no evidence for redshift quantization which has now been attributed to selection effects where brighter galaxies and quasars are more likely to be measured for redshift resulting in a bias or the quantization is simply the gravitational clustering of galaxies.4. It was actually the astronomical anomalies like indications of altering lightspeed and redshift quantization that led Setterfield to his theory.
Now you are making things up.He did consider it to be an intrinsic property of the vacuum
...Sounds like a variation of luminiferous ether, ain't it.Now you are making things up.
In 1911 physicists had a classical view of a vacuum as empty space devoid of matter, photons, energy and the electromagnetic field.
Planck envisaged harmonic oscillators as vibrating charged particles in the blackbody which led to ZPE which is as far removed as one could imagine from quantum harmonic oscillators in space-time resulting in ZPE which eventually became the prevailing view.
As I said, Planck and others in response to his second law, considered the ZPE to be some sort of an intrinsic energy of the vacuum...Now you are making things up.
In 1911 physicists had a classical view of a vacuum as empty space devoid of matter, photons, energy and the electromagnetic field.
Planck envisaged harmonic oscillators as vibrating charged particles in the blackbody which led to ZPE which is as far removed as one could imagine from quantum harmonic oscillators in space-time resulting in ZPE which eventually became the prevailing view.
Well it seems that is your bias...I would have thought the Bible would have been source of inspiration for conversion to YEC.
Well buried by the mainstream scientific community...where is the evidence which supports this assertion
Your refutations are always based on the QED framework, but this will not work because SED is a totally different ball park.This is complete nonsense here are some examples to refute this.
Indeed, and that is exactly the crux of Setterfields theory.This would have an effect on plasma physics
You are swopping causes here, it would be more accurate to state that the effect of a lower ZPE would be both a faster effective lightspeed and also faster plasma processes.On the contrary a faster lightspeed does have an effect on plasma physics
I was blind sighted in my initial response that the faster lightspeed itself was directly causing faster plasma processes because plasma processes in themselves alone are able to create the celestial objects in much faster times than gravitational processes are capable of. As stated above, faster lightspeed only indirectly has to do with faster plasma processes.3. The proposed faster development of galaxies and celestial objects has nothing to do with faster lightspeed but rather with Plasma physics.
And at least as far as I can see, no consciousness was required.
This is just empty symantics juggling...
A quick look at the Oxfort definitions shows both words essentially have the same meaning, one more leaning to duration and the other more to extend.
Eternal: Lasting or existing forever, without beginning or end, permanently.
Infinite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size, impossible to measure or calculate.
So the point is that because the universe cannot be eternal, it will have had to be created at a specific moment by something which ultimately is uncaused itself, and subsequently the universe has had to be sustained by this uncaused cause.
If the uncaused cause would not be conscious, so merely being a force or something like a "quantum field", then it would not be able to alter its behavior by itself at any given moment, however that would even work within "timeless" conditions. And because it is uncaused there can be nothing else that could have caused it to change its behaviour. This means it could only just do what it would do by default andnit would do just that for all eternity, which would mean it would have created the universe already an eternity ago, which we know is not possible.
Therefore the uncaused cause of the universe hás to be consious because that is the only way, after having nót created the universe for an eternity while itself being eternally self-existend and unchanging, to then at that specific moment deciding to dó create the universe.
Let me just give one very practical example of how the effects of a lower ZPE would cancel out certain negative effects.
Radioactive decay would happen at a much higher rate, but the decay process itself would generate much less energy resulting in the same amount of energy being generated in the same gravitational timespan as with the current strenght of ZPE.
Let's look at this claim. It is well known in creation/anti-creation circles that radioactive decays and their byproducts are a serious problem for young Earth claims. In this segment you make two claims:
1. Radioactive decays happen at a much higher rate (a common YEC claim to diffuse the problem); and
2. Decay processes produces less energy under the "ZPE" regime you propose. (I have no idea what a "gravitational timespan" is as I've never seen those. It sounds like the Kelvin-Helmholtz timescale, but I doubt that is what you are talking about.)
Since claim 1 (faster decay) is a key part of your theory and I have no interest in trying to dig into it, I will examine claim 2. "Less energy from decay".
The energy released by radioactive decays comes from the difference between the masses of the nucleus and the daughter products. So lets take a look at one of the key decays that regulate the issues that "accelerated decay models" have -- the decay of Uranium-235.
U235 is one of the two primary isotopes of uranium found in Earth rocks. It has a half-life of 703 million years. The more common isotope of uranium (U238) has a much longer half-life of 4.5 billion years. As such about half of the U238 from the formation of the Earth has already decayed and as has about 1% left (1/2^(4.5/0.7) ). Each one of those decays sets off a chain of further decays until it reaches lead.
U235 has a mass of 235.0439281 u (atomic mass units, scaled to the mass of carbon 12 as exactly 12 u).
U235 decays to thorium-231 (mass 231.0363028 u) and an alpha particle (mass 4.001506179129 u ).
The difference is 0.0061191 u. That represents 0.0061191 u c^2 of energy *per decay*. This is set by the mass of the particles. How can this be changed by your "ZPE" model?
But all this is actually off-topic of this thread which should be about the universe not being eternal and what we can say about the cause of the universe...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?