Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,22:23    TP, have you met Sherry? I think you should introduce yourself, you have a lot in common. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,22:32    I'm here strictly for the mocking, TP. Hopefully, it will earn me tickets to a cricket match which will make your stupidity worthwhile reading. First of all let me say that I always capitalize quantum physics.  Always. Second, here is my Quote o' teh Weak: Quote I am more comfortable with quantum physics than biology. My school was so poor it could only provide quantum mechanics.  We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series.  We were so poor our delta pi gamma function was in lowercase. What is the main purpose of a delta pi gamma function, TP?  Any clue? You getting any of this, TP? Finally, please don't get the impression that we don't like you, TP.  Far from it!  You're the best thing for creationism since UFO's built by Satan.  Hang in there.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2008,23:40    Hi Henry, Ok, so you are of the opinion Quantum Mechanics is weird. In a way I have the same opinion (hard not to).  However, Quantum Mechanics makes quite a bit of sense as long as you constrain your study to only Quantum Level effects. In other words, Quantum Mechanics can be thought of as normal, and it is the macro world that is "weird". In the Macro World,  the time dimension flows in only one direction, how weird is that?  It's like saying we can only go North and not South. I find it telling that combining Quantum Mechanics with Cosmological things like Black Holes is easier to model and explain than simple decoherence. Why do BuckyBalls exhibit superposition but baseballs don't?  Why is the Schrödinger's Cat puzzle so difficult to solve? Of course the peanut gallery following I seem to be accumulating isn't going to be impressed with just questions. But it is late and I have to get up early tomorrow. So let me offer that Sir Roger Penrose has a hypothesis for decoherence that is testable and is being tested. It is a derivative of the Copenhagen Quantum interpretation called Objective Reduction. Other people have similar Copenhagen-like quantum interpretations by other names, but basically they all presume quantum effects are artifacts of waves in space-time. The main opposing theory is held by people unwilling to give up on the existence of particles.  So much so, they are willing to embrace the constant generation of multiple universes containing all the different possibilities.  It is called the Many Worlds Quantum Interpretation.  Personally, I think it is more metaphysical than simply claiming "God works in mysterious ways". The other option is to ignore it and hope someone will come up with a more acceptable explanation.  I suggest it is obvious that we have waited long enough considering we are starting to build encryption devices and computers based on the reality of Quantum Mechanics. Even though it is "weird" it is time we accept it.  We have an explanation that isn't metaphysical.  The problem is that accepting it will greatly disturb the Status Quo in many scientific fields, including Biology.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,01:07    Yo, TP, still cutting and pasting I see. Since you gave up on a definition of design, perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on your personal interpretation of the delta pi gamma function. I don't expect any math since you're a poser, but a layman's description would be a good start. How about something easy? Given a triple integral of delta bounded zero to one, dx, how would you apply the dpg function? Granted, this is graduate level quantum mechanics, but take a stab anyway.

Bob O'H Posts: 2564 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,01:13    Quote We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series. Ah, you certainly wasn't one of those squares, then. Bob -------------- It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,02:13    Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 22 2008,23:32) We were so poor we could only afford the first two terms of a Taylor series. LOL.

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,06:22    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 22 2008,21:08) Hi Albatrossity, As I explained before, I consider the term "design" to be a property of everything that exists.  The design of light can be understood by understanding Maxwell's equations and quantum physics. I also think "design" is a loaded term exploited be the religious-based ID Movement to hide their agenda of promoting a belied in a "Designer", aka "Creator" aka God. As for experiments people like Jack Tuszynski have been doing quite a bit.  Others are looking into quantum effects in biology like Patel.  And then there is Berkeley labs...     Quote “We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,” said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.” link That's pretty much a non-answer. A few more of those and I'll probably join the mockingbirds too. As for your photosynthesis example, since it has nothing at all to do with your previous hand-waving about centrioles, that's pretty much a non-answer too. You are definitely provoking something, but it doesn't feel like thought. More like pity. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,06:37    Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 23 2008,01:17) Louis - You have been away from Merry Old England too long, old chap!  He is a pompous twit not a pompous twat! Dearest J-Dog, No, no, I really did mean twat (for those unfamiliar with the term see here ). Playing the "Lurkers support me in email" card is a good twat indicator on the part of TP (aptly initialled since he seems to have great familiarity with shit and is seen regularly cuddling up to an arsehole). The thought hasn't occured to TP that perhaps one reason that the Telic Thoughts crowd is more curious about his drivel than the average ATBCer is because the Telic Thoughts crowd are less scientifically literate than the average ATBCer*. TP's smoke and mirrors game with big words impresses them more than it does us. Any time someone proposing "design" (or indeed any claim) refuses to, or cannot, define the very basic terms in said proposition/claim unambiguously and meaningfully then they are wasting everyone's time. Wanking on about how "honest" Mike Gene is compared to Dembski or how the Telic thoughts crowd is more open to TP's quantum effluvium than the ATBC crowd is just so much irrelevant concern trolling. We don't need to discuss Hameroff's ideas (for example), TP has yet to present an idea coherently enough to reach "Spot the Dog and the Big Red Ball" let alone postgrad level quantum physics and neurology. This is another thing he seems to be missing. By a long margin too. Shorter version for TP: 1) Sometimes intelligent people mock you/your ideas or are not receptive to your ideas/presentation of those ideas because the ideas are false/wrong/bad and you present them badly/irrelevantly etc. Sometimes people try to point this out to you out of a kind of frustrated helpfulness. Think about it. Mockery is sometimes a clue! 2) Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science". Louis * Editted to add: this is something of an understatement IMO. From the little reading of Telic Thoughts I have done, the average TTer is less scientifically literate than a severely mentally impaired house plant. With learning difficulties and a disadvantageous childhood. And a poor teacher. And Attention Deficit Disorder. And lead poisoning. And a frontal lobotomy. And a serious head injury brought on by being beaten about the head and neck with a stout pipe. And by virtue of being a fucking PLANT! -------------- Bye.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,09:21    Rats!  I think Louis is going to win the cricket tickets. I so wanted to see Huddersfield play Lower Gramble. Pity, that.

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,09:31    I'll give them to you Doc Bill, I couldn't prevent you from seeing the mighty Lower Gramble. I don't intend to be so mean but in the words of Bill Hicks, I'm in such a mood, I think it's this haircut, every time I see it I think "Someone has to die!". ;-) Louis -------------- Bye.

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,10:42    Quote (Louis @ Jan. 23 2008,06:37) Shorter version for TP: 1) Sometimes intelligent people mock you/your ideas or are not receptive to your ideas/presentation of those ideas because the ideas are false/wrong/bad and you present them badly/irrelevantly etc. Sometimes people try to point this out to you out of a kind of frustrated helpfulness. Think about it. Mockery is sometimes a clue! 2) Sometimes you need to walk before you run. Start at the level of "forming coherent basic idea" before trying to "synthesise myriad complex concepts poorly understood from popular science books" or "revolutionising all of science". I'm afraid TP is constitutionally blind to the limits of his own understanding.   For instance, in this thread at Telic Thoughts, he: 1. Misidentifies gravitational redshift and Mercury's orbital precession as motivators for Einstein's theory of special relativity. 2. Confuses inertial reference frames with absolute reference frames. 3. Mistakenly claims that general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox. 4. After all of the above are pointed out to him, proceeds to lecture Zachriel and me on the twin paradox, getting it totally wrong. Eventually Zachriel, amused by TP's intransigence, portrays him as Starfleet's version of Captain Queeg. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:23    Hi Albatrossity et al, Excuse me for the brief reply but I want to take advantage of the opening Keiths made for me. I had provided a definition for "design" back on page 2 of this thread, but it was ignored....   Quote Here is an online dictionary definition for "design"... design noun 1.  the act of working out the form of something (as by making a sketch or outline or plan); "he contributed to the design of a new instrument"   2.  an arrangement scheme; "the awkward design of the keyboard made operation difficult"; "it was an excellent design for living"; "a plan for seating guests"   3.  something intended as a guide for making something else; "a blueprint for a house"; "a pattern for a skirt" 4.  a decorative or artistic work; "the coach had a design on the doors"   5.  an anticipated outcome that is intended or that guides your planned actions; "his intent was to provide a new translation"; "good intentions are not enough"; "it was created with the conscious aim of answering immediate needs"; "he made no secret of his designs" 6.  a preliminary sketch indicating the plan for something; "the design of a building"   7.  the creation of something in the mind I think the second definition is probably closest to what I am talking about. As for metrics.  Can you provide me a metric for the term "existence"?  Because if it exists, I say it has the property of “design”. Of course this is a side issue for what I am suggesting. I am not Mike Gene.  I am certainly not Dembski.  If you want to know their definition of design you will have to ask them.  The idea I have been presenting is that... "All quantum effects are interconnected in Minkowskian space-time." I will, and have, answered any questions of my definitions and why I think this is true. Even the main point of the provocative Stuart Hameroff quote wasn't about "design".  It was suggesting... "...organic molecules and cytoskeletal protein lattices may have the inherent flexibility to harness ambient energy for quantum coherent states, interact with the Planck scale via quantum gravity processes, and utilize photons as phase-ordered matter." On the Group Think situation.  It wasn't whether Telic Thoughts or AtBC is more or less accepting of my ideas (believe me, there are plenty of TTers who do NOT like it).  It was the differnce in the effectiveness of peer pressure.  Frankly, I was surprised that some people from AtBC were actually afraid to approach me publicly and chose to do so privately. Of course there are others who are independent and strong willed enough to overcome the pressure and have shown their interest publicly on AtBC. Now on to Keiths.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:35    Quote Of course there are others who are independent and strong willed enough to overcome the pressure and have shown their interest publicly on AtBC. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:47    Hi Keiths, Thank you for your comment.  It provides me an excuse to repost something I think will help explain things I want explained.  You see, Zachriel was trying to deflect the point of my Star Trek based story with his.  Here is mine...       Quote Captain's Log, star date 2006.1004, We are on assignment in the Alpha quadrant to study planet cluster 623. I have ordered the navigator to make it appear the planet cluster is moving in a circular pattern relative to the ship. Side note, I find it interesting that when the navigator does this it looks like the entire universe is spinning at the same rate, fascinating. I have ordered Ensign Keiths to my ready-room. Here he is now (wearing a red shirt, of course). Ensign, we are sending down several survey teams to various planets in this cluster. This operation will occur over two years, ship time. The first year we will be dropping off teams the second year we will be picking them up. However, it won't appear to be a year for you. Since, as you know, "…there is no absolute frame of reference…" and "…that the laws of physics are identical in all…" local frames of reference. Based on the ship's frame of reference, you will be constantly traveling at warp 0.9. At nine tenths the speed of light time will go slower…. err… um… or does it go faster? Hmmm, let's do the math… ds^2 = dt^2 - (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2) = (1 year)^2 - (0.9 light-years)^2 = 1.0 - 0.81 = 0.19 ds = 0.436 years Ah yes, that’s it. Less than half a year. Therefore, we will provision your shuttle to last you and your team half a year. We will be back before you know it. Ensign Keiths? Do you have something to say? I wrote this in response to your claim that...       Quote I think the problem is that you're confusing the concepts of absolute vs. inertial reference frames. Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. In fact, special relativity recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them. BTW, I never claimed there were "no inertial frames" and defy you to point out where I did. The paradox in the Twin's Paradox is in choosing which frame of reference to use.  You say it doesn't matter.  I say it does. The interesting part of your and Zachriel's "lecture" is that you were arguing in exactly the opposite directions. Here is how I ended the off-topic discussion...       Quote Hi Zachrial and Keiths, It looks like Zachriel rejects the Math Page article and keiths thinks the "…author of the Math Page article confirms that special relativity resolves the Twin Paradox." This has become too much of a distraction. For the record, I reject Zachriel's, Keiths' and Lasky's suggestion that Special Relativity is complete enough to explain the Twin's Paradox without an implicit or explicit preferential choice of reference frames. I embrace the Math Page article's assessment… "As mentioned above, one of Einstein's two main two reasons for abandoning special relativity as a suitable framework for physics was the fact that, no less than Newtonian mechanics, special relativity is based on the unjustified and epistemologically problematical assumption of a preferred class of reference frames, precisely the issue raised by the twins paradox. Today the "special theory" exists only (aside from its historical importance) as a convenient set of widely applicable formulas for important limiting cases of the general theory, but the phenomenological justification for those formulas can only be found in the general theory." If we continue to disagree, we continue to disagree. However, hopefully by now you understand my position even if you don't like it. Link So Ensign Keiths, have you figured out how to explain things to a captain thinking he can use his frame of reference and only Special Relativity?

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,11:53    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,11:23) Hi Albatrossity et al, Excuse me for the brief reply but I want to take advantage of the opening Keiths made for me. I had provided a definition for "design" back on page 2 of this thread, but it was ignored.... And I provided this on the very first page of the thread, but unfortunately I ignored it myself.   Quote I'm a scientist, not a mathematician. When either Dembski or this new guy get around to doing some experiments based on their notions, and publishing the results of those experiments in peer-reviewed journals rather than books, let me know. thanks. I will first point out that there is still a failure to provide any rational and consistent metric to describe "design" in any of the posts TP has written. I will then point out that three out of the four non-numerical Mike-Gene-derived criteria for design (2. Discontinuity - How irreducibly complex is the phenomenon?; 3. Rationality - How purposeful (i.e. functional) is the phenomenon?; and 4. Foresight - How much front loading is involved in the phenomenon?), cited in TP's OP have either been refuted as evidence of design (IC), or are completely impossible to prove scientifically. This is simply not science.   Then I'll take my own advice and pay attention to all of this again when somebody does some experiments and gets them published in a peer-reviewed group-think journal. Carry on. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:18    Time for a show of hands... How many people think our universe is totally without any kind of absolute reference frame? How many people think our universe has a reference frame that is the non-Euclidean geometry formulated by Minkowski? How many people want to ignore this as unimportant to understanding our reality? From the a paper titled Einstein’s Ether: Why did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?  (Warning, long download time) "In (1905) Einstein constructed a relativity theory that was based on the assertion that the ether was superfluous. In 1908 Minkowski formulated the theory of the “absolute world”. The nineteenth century ether no longer existed. A new kind of ether (space-time) came into being. One could keep on maintaining the ether, and at the same time strip it of the notion of absolute rest. Einstein seemed to agree, and after 1916 he returned to the ether. In 1920 he combined Minkowski’s absolute world concept and Mach’s ideas on rotational movements…"

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:46    I wrote: Quote Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference, but it most definitely does not say that there are no inertial frames, as you claimed. TP replied: Quote BTW, I never claimed this were "no inertial frames" and defy you to point out where I did. Here you go: Quote The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. If everything was relative and there was no "ether" (inertial frame of reference) then this was a problem. And you wonder why we don't take you seriously. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:48    I have a better question, 1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about? 2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think? 3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid? Show of hands please. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,12:55    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,18:48) I have a better question, 1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about? 2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think? 3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid? Show of hands please. Ooooh Oooh Me Me! Does that make me a bad person? Anyway, TP did give some seriously good advice earlier up this thread: ignore him and his drivel. I'm off to do just that. Louis -------------- Bye.

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:06    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,13:48) I have a better question, 1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about? 2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think? 3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid? Show of hands please. 1) *raises hand* 2) *raises hand* 3) *raises hand* (But only after I made sure everyone else was thinking the same.) :) TP, I hate to break it to you, but you're beginning to remind me of AFDaveyDoodles. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Albatrossity2 Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:24    Quote (Mr_Christopher @ Jan. 23 2008,12:48) I have a better question, 1) How many people think TP will continue to ignore/dodge questions posed to him by people who actually know what they're talking about? 2) How many people think TP will continue to paint himself as a persecuted victim of group think? 3) How many people think TP will never realize private emails lending support for his nutty ideas is not evidence that those nutty ideas are valid? Show of hands please. -------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.                         - Pattiann Rogers

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:32    Hi Keiths, If that was your best shot I am quite comfortable with leaving that decision up to those in the listening audience, most of whom appear to have reasonable reading comprehension skills. So, tell everyone one more time... "Special relativity says that there is no absolute frame of reference [but] recognizes an infinite number of inertial frames and holds that the laws of physics are identical in all of them." And then, Ensign Keiths, explain why your captain must work the problem from a specific frame of reference in order to arrive at the correct conclusion. Wouldn't it be easier, and more correct, to recognise the existence of the single, absolute reference frame General Relativity describes? You might arrive at an approximately correct answer if you use Special Relativity.  You could also end up with a totally incorrect answer if you choose the wrong reference frame. General Relativity gives you the correct answer because the universe is, in fact, the "absolute world" Minkowski described when he formulated the non-Euclidean geometry Einstein eventually embraced and has been successfully used by physicists like Hawking and Penrose. BTW, Penrose has a whole chapter is his book,The Road to Reality, that is dedicated to explaining Minkowskian geometry and how it applies to things like the Clock Paradox (aka Twin Paradox). You might want to consider reading it.

Mr_Christopher Posts: 1238 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,13:53    TP, have you shared your special insight with skepti, afdave or vmartin? I think they would have an appreciation for your ideas...And methods too!  "Like minds" and all. -------------- Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:33    Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 23 2008,13:32) If that was your best shot I am quite comfortable with leaving that decision up to those in the listening audience, most of whom appear to have reasonable reading comprehension skills. It was hardly my "best shot".  To demonstrate your confusion, I merely had to quote you. Quote You might arrive at an approximately correct answer if you use Special Relativity... General Relativity gives you the correct answer... The issue isn't whether general relativity is a better theory than special relativity.  Of course it is -- why would Einstein "improve" on special relativity by developing and publishing an inferior theory? The issue is (and always has been) whether general relativity is needed to resolve the twin paradox. At Telic Thoughts, you claimed that it is: Quote The Twin Paradox was a paradox for special relativity because the problem's solution was inconsistant depending on which twin's reference frame was used. Listen carefully.  The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is used.  Zachriel and I understand that.  Lasky (the author of the Scientific American article) understands that.  The author of the Math Page article understands that.  You are the only one who apparently does not understand that. Read the Lasky article again, and try to comprehend it this time.  Find an intelligent friend who can explain it to you, if necessary. If you succeed in understanding the Lasky article, the following claims should make sense to you: 1. Special relativity is able to resolve the twin paradox. 2. The solution does not depend on which twin's reference frame is chosen.  That's why it's called "relativity". 3. None of this implies that general relativity is inferior to special relativity. 4. General relativity also resolves the twin paradox. Now stop, pause, and take a deep breath before your wounded ego propels you into an ill-considered response. Read and understand the Lasky article first. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

creeky belly Posts: 205 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:35    Quote Why do BuckyBalls exhibit superposition but baseballs don't? TP, I've explained this to you before, it's a product of the deBroglie wavelength and coherence. If you read that paper I sent you on decoherence, you'd know this already. The fact that you still bring this up makes me think that you would rather keep the question mysterious in your head rather than actually examine the literature. In the interest of full disclosure, I've corresponded to TP by email a few times. I felt like the physics discussion, despite pages of afdave's drivel, was best left to PM's. My personal opinion is that too often "quantum" gets invoked anytime we want to explain something mysterious. It's requirement for any of the phenomena he presented (specifically Hameroff's model), seemed tenuous from the evidence presented. I provided peer reviewed literature that supports my contention exactly: the Coulomb interaction between 2 protons and 2 electrons is sufficient to cause decoherence. Personally, I think you should follow up their experiments. You need a better grasp of quantum physics and mechanics beyond the people who popularize it; maybe look for an evening Master's program in physics. I'm sure there are plenty of institutions with access to laser tables, and you could probably secure neural cultures through a biology lab. You have the opportunity to show me I'm wrong, but you need to first recognize your own deficiencies.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,14:58    Hi Mr Christopher, I am somewhat familiar with AFDave and less familiar with Vmartin.  I don't know about skepti, but from your reference I could give a good guess. At this point, I probably could claim the earth is round and have it taken as a creationist argument. I am just curious as to how long you guys will let me play the straight man to your taunts.  I have an audience.  I am on solid ground with what I am suggesting. General Relativity and Minkowskian Geometry properly solves the Twin Paradox because Minkowski's "absolute world" model of our universe was correct and has been substantially verified. Do you really think taunts and comparisons to creationists will make my arguments any less valid? It's my hope and expectation that at least some people will be provoked into some internal re-evaluation in the face of this continuing ridiculousness. General Relativity is real.  Special Relativity was a temporary stop gap that has outlived its usefulness. This is a creationist argument?

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:07    Quote (creeky belly @ Jan. 23 2008,20:35) In the interest of full disclosure, I've corresponded to TP by email a few times. OH NOES!!!! NOW YOU MUST BE PERSECUTED FOR VIOLATING THE GROUPTHINK!!!!!! {Whoosh} Noooooooobody expects the AtBC Groupthink Gestapo. Our main weapon is mockery. And consistency. Our two main weapons are mockery and consistency. And intimidation. Our three main weapons are mockery, consistency and intimidation. And a fanatical devotion to philosophical naturalism. Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as mockery, consistency, intimidation and a fanatical devotio.....I'll come in again. {Whoosh} Nooooooooobody expects the AtBC Groupthink Gestapo! Our main weapon is mockery. That's it, just mockery. Now Person Who Conversed With A Demonstrable Kook By Private Mail, how do you plead? Cardinal LouFCD! Poke him with the Soft Cushions! .....have you got all the stuffing up one end? Etc. Louis -------------- Bye.

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:13    Hi Keiths, I see you have finally posted what you should have long ago. Occam tells us what to do with superfluous hypotheses. Now, would you agree that the Twin Paradox is a geometry problem and that the traveling twin takes a short-cut in the non-Euclidean space-time geometry? Or would you like to complicate it to make it less understandable?

Thought Provoker Posts: 530 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:26    Hi Creeky Belly, Thank you for stepping forward. I did enjoy and read what you sent me.  Thank you again. As you know, Sir Roger Penrose doesn't agree with your understanding of what causes decoherence. As to the ramifications of this.  We will get there slowly assuming this line of discussion continues. First things first.   Minkowskian space-time geometry is the appropriate model of our universe, not Euclidean geometry. Agreed? Minkowskian space-time geometry easily allows for the interconnection of things that travel at the speed of light.  It practically forces it. As uncomfortable as it might make you, would you agree to that too?

Alan Fox Posts: 1556 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2008,15:32    Quote P.S. your new avatar makes me think you might be interested in a few more cats. Thanks for the link, Bob. The subject is Ginger (how we struggled to come up with that). I have a few more photos (in the drier, in my wife's knicker drawer etc. ) but alas, Ginger is no more...

Pages: (7) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard