RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >   
  Topic: Comparing Dembski and Mike Gene, Story of two attempts to infer design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Nerull



Posts: 317
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:08   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,20:03)
Hmmm, it’s gotten quiet all of a sudden.

Hi Henry,

Thank you for your comment.

I had put together the Star Trek example in anticipation of the standard "changing inertial frames" argument.

It is the landing party that is going out and back, not the Captain on his ship.  At least from the Captain's frame of reference.

You are using acceleration to choose a preferred frame of reference.

Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.  Oops, special relativity breaks down and then the hand waving begins.  Why make exceptions for an antiquated concept that has outlived its usefulness?  Nostalgia?

Did you understand what Penrose was talking about with "'arc length' measured along a world line"? Minkowski brought Einstein and physics back to the "absolute world" of a single, non-Euclidean reference frame. The integral of ds is the summation of the path taken by the respective twin.  The path taken by the traveling twin is shorter in the single, "absolute world" that is our universe.

The traveling twin takes a short cut.

You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

--------------
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris

   
swbarnes2



Posts: 78
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,19:46   

Quote
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.


But, but, but, how could anyone who struggled through a 1000 page book not know more than professionals?  It was a thousand pages!  Sure, getting a PhD in physics means that you know more that someone who only read a 400 page book, but spending 5 years of your life training to learn the math, and how to apply it correctly, and living hip-deep in the latest in experimental data doesn't give you half the expertice as someone who struggled through a thousand page book!

And how could Penrose be wrong about...anything?  He wrote a 1000 page book!

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:09   

Hi Nerull,

You wrote...
Quote
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.


All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)


For homebody; dt = 2 years, dx = dy = dz = 0

Homebody's clock = sqrt(2^2) = 2 years.


For traveler; dt = 1 year, dx = 0.8 light years (trip out)
                  dt = 1 year, dx = -0.8 light years (trip back)

Traveler's clock = 2 x sqrt(1^2 - 0.8^2) =  1.2 years.

No acceleration, no preferential frame of reference.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:31   

Hi swbarnes,

Like I said, all I can do is my best.

I'm an engineer.  Maybe if you presented some easy to understand equations that don't imply a preferential frame of reference, I would understand better.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:31   

Quote (Nerull @ Jan. 24 2008,19:08)
You've made it quite clear you understand neither SR, GR, or QM.

You're being generous, Nerull.  TP doesn't even understand Newtonian physics.  For example, he thinks a ship in orbit experiences no acceleration:
Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.

TP, didn't you take physics in engineering school?  I did, and we learned in our first semester that circular motion requires a constant acceleration of v²/r, where v is the speed and r is the radius.  Elliptical orbits also require a continuous inward acceleration, though the magnitude of the acceleration varies with distance from the center of mass.

Why keep embarrassing yourself?  Take some time off from the blogs, get a nice freshman-level physics text, and learn the basics.

People won't take you seriously as long as it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about.

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4976
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,21:33   

Quote
Now if the ship was orbiting a gravity well, the Captain and his ship wouldn't experience acceleration.


That was a rewrite of the whole story of the twin "paradox". If you want to argue that the question in the original version of the twin "paradox" isn't answered by referring to the change of reference frame, you'll have to do it in the context of the original story.

Henry

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:10   

Hi Henry,

That was a couple of comments too late.

I have done it both ways.

The Star Trek example exposes that special relativity only works for "special" situations.

For the typical twins paradox I calculated the two arc lengths.  The traveler's arc length (ds) is shorter than homebody's.

The traveling twin takes a shortcut.

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:12   

Quote
All I can do is my best.

ds = sqrt(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)


For homebody; dt = 2 years, dx = dy = dz = 0

Homebody's clock = sqrt(2^2) = 2 years.


For traveler; dt = 1 year, dx = 0.8 light years (trip out)
                 dt = 1 year, dx = -0.8 light years (trip back)

Traveler's clock = 2 x sqrt(1^2 - 0.8^2) =  1.2 years.

No acceleration, no preferential frame of reference.

No acceleration? Look carefully. How did the velocity vector go from rest to +0.8c? How did the velocity vector go from +0.8c to -0.8c? How much force would be required to do this instantaneously? How much force would be required to change the momentum of a 1 kg object by -1.6c in 8 seconds? What is the average acceleration?

Shh, don't help him. He's getting so close to answering his own question, but TP needs to recall a few principles from Newtonian dynamics.

EDIT: You probably need the relativistic momentum to solve this problem, but the principle is the same.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,22:47   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Ok you got me.  I made a stupid mistake.  I should have used the Penrose quote Keiths pointed out....

"It is frequently argued that it would be necessary to pass to Einstein's general relativity in order to handle acceleration, but this is completely wrong.  The answer for the clock times is obtained using the formula [integral of ds] (with ds>0) in both theories."

Of course Penrose might be totally wrong that all we have to do is calculate the arc lengths.  And what kind of name is Minkowski anyway?  Einstein was probably just being polite and pretending that he agreed with his old teacher's "absolute world" silly idea.

I don't usually like resort to sarcasm, but it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,23:13   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 24 2008,22:47)
It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

Quote
...it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

You see, it's not TP's fault that he's spouting off about things he knows nothing about, telling all of us that we're wrong and he's right.  It's our fault for not educating him properly.

We keep asking him to pick up a textbook and learn some physics, which is so unfair.

Stop whining, TP.

--------------
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. 24 2008,23:16   

Quote
I don't usually like resort to sarcasm, but it is getting a little irritating that those who understand this better than I aren't stepping up and explaining it in terms we all can understand.

It is a whole lot easier to set back and throw stones from the sidelines, isn't it?

I don't mean to withhold the answer from you, but this is the way I was taught physics. Simply giving you the answer is unsatisfactory to me; you start from your base assumptions and work your way up. You asserted that there was no acceleration, and logically deduced that the implication was that there exists no preferred reference frame. Your logic was fine, but your conclusion was based on false assumptions. So how do you know you were incorrect? Apply the concepts of Newtonian dynamics.

Now, of course, with the hubris you showed the rest of the commenters on this board, perhaps I took a little schadenfreude in getting you to admit your mistake. On the other hand, you didn't come here looking for answers, you came to spout off about your theory. You then proceeded to tell everyone how wrong they were about physics, and now it's some wonder when they throw it back in your face. I think you're genuinely interested in the science, but I don't think you do yourself justice when you can't be humble enough to ask for help.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 24 2008,23:25   

and....


MIKE GENE'S BOOK IS STILL SHOITE.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,07:08   

Hi all,

As for picking up textbooks and trying to figure this out for myself.  That is what I have done.

As for trying to get help in my understanding, that is what I am doing.

As for humbly accepting other people's understanding as correct without understanding it myself, that is what I am NOT doing.  If I don't understand it, I don't know it.

All I can do is my best.

What I see is that if curved space is a reality, then we should be able to calculate paths through it.  We could (and would) do this by summing up the arc length segments that make up the path.

For four dimensional space-time, the arc lengths (ds) would be a function of dt, dx, dy and dz.

It is my understanding that the arc length function that matches experimental data like GPS satellites is...

ds = SQRT( dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

It is my understanding that clocks are a kind of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) for curved space.  Clocks measure the path lengths through space-time.  The more accurate the clocks, the more accurate our measurement.

I have managed to understand how this concept relates to Newtonian Physics in that Newtonian Physics is a limited, special case where dt is much, much larger than dx, dy and dz.

To me, this makes things like velocity and acceleration just interesting mathematical artifacts that fall out of the fundamental reality of a more complete view of curved space-time.

I consider it a good thing that my understanding is consistent with Newtonian Physics, because if it wasn't my understanding would be obviously flawed.

To me, the traveling twin takes a short cut because the calculated path through space-time is shorter than the calculated path of the homebody.  This has been confirmed experimentally with the space-time measurement devices commonly known as clocks.

To me Special Relativity, like Newtonian Physics, is limited to only "special" situations.  I consider it an unnecessary detail when we have a more comprehensive solution that is easy to apply.  The traveling twin takes a short cut in space-time.  QED

I am all too aware of how easy it is to make simple things complicated.  As an engineer, I am generally trying to see the root causes and/or requirements of things.  I work with plenty of people with PhDs who more often than not tend to worry about unimportant details and side issues (e.g. semantics) when we are attempting to get our hands around a particular problem.

If I let PhD types do my thinking for me, we would never get anything accomplished.

So, in plain simple words this glorified grease monkey can understand...

Do I have a correct, if crude, understanding that space-time is curved and that some paths in its non-Euclidean geometry are shorter than others?

And, furthermore, the path taken by someone traveling only along the time dimension is NOT the shortest path?

In other words, is the idea that the traveling twin takes a short cut wrong or not?

Thank you.

  
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,08:13   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,07:08)
As for picking up textbooks and trying to figure this out for myself.  That is what I have done.

As for trying to get help in my understanding, that is what I am doing.

If you were trying to get help, you wouldn't be pompously lecturing people on subjects you know nothing about.
Quote
As for humbly accepting other people's understanding as correct without understanding it myself, that is what I am NOT doing.

None of us have asked you to take our opinions on faith.  
Quote
I consider it a good thing that my understanding is consistent with Newtonian Physics, because if it wasn't my understanding would be obviously flawed.

Your understanding isn't consistent with Newtonian physics.  You claim that an orbiting ship will undergo no acceleration, remember?

--------------
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. 25 2008,09:28   

Hi Keiths,

In one sense an ORBITING spaceship doesn't experience force because of the gravity well it is in.  Therefore, it doesn't experience acceleration.

It is my understanding the concept of "centripetal acceleration" is an artificial explanation for dealing with the reality of curved space.

That is what I meant about my understanding matching Newtonian Physics.  It also exposes the limitations of "special" relativity (i.e. only works in special cases).

As for my "lecturing", why on earth would you consider an anonymous non-person to be an authority on anything?

All I have are my arguments.  I think they are valid.  I think they might help others re-think what they do and don't really understand.  My provocative style forces people, like you, to defend their understanding.

If you are successful, it helps me.  If you are not, it helps others.  Either way, it makes for a positive development.

It causes people to think for themselves.

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,10:49   

ahhh freakin double post...

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,10:53   

Quote
It causes people to think for themselves.


Wrong again,  It causes people to conclude you're a mindless tard.

Instead of pretending you know what you're talking about, why don't you ask questions and listen to the answers for once.

Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.  You are surrounded by people far more knowledgable than you, an intelligent person would realize that and attempt to profit from their insight.  Instead you go on and on like some idiot who's read far too much from AIG.

Who knows, you might actaully learn something and forge some friendships in the process.

That is how normal (non-tard) people do it.

In spite of your tard approach, you seem to be a bright (capable) guy.  Grow the fuck up TP and it will amaze you what you might learn.

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,11:33   

Quote
In one sense an ORBITING spaceship doesn't experience force because of the gravity well it is in.  Therefore, it doesn't experience acceleration.

It is my understanding the concept of "centripetal acceleration" is an artificial explanation for dealing with the reality of curved space.

That is what I meant about my understanding matching Newtonian Physics.  It also exposes the limitations of "special" relativity (i.e. only works in special cases).

You don't need to bring in any concept of curved space to see that it undergoes an acceleration. Since velocity is a vector quantity, you can apply the definition of average acceleration(vector) in this context as the change in the velocity(vector) in a period of time. For a circular orbit, you'll notice that even though the magnitude of the velocity does not change, usually the direction will (the special case is one revolution, the average acceleration(vector) will be zero, since the direction and magnitude of the velocity will be the same). This link shows you how to derive the instantaneous acceleration from the limiting case of average acceleration (just like Newton). In general, when the acceleration is perpendicular to the velocity, you will see a change in the direction of the velocity vector, but the magnitude will be constant.
   
Quote
As for my "lecturing", why on earth would you consider an anonymous non-person to be an authority on anything?

All I have are my arguments.  I think they are valid.  I think they might help others re-think what they do and don't really understand.  My provocative style forces people, like you, to defend their understanding.

If you are successful, it helps me.  If you are not, it helps others.  Either way, it makes for a positive development.

It causes people to think for themselves.

Here's the problem: this isn't about thinking for yourself, it's about the sound application of basic physics principles. If your assumptions are wrong, then your conclusions are tenuous. I'll admit that your mistake is particularly common among students first introduced to the concepts of Newtonian dynamics with vectors, and I'm sure it's helpful to those who might not be familiar with the concepts to learn about them. On the other hand, you came here to promote your point of view. If I can't trust that you know what you're talking about (you clearly don't), then I, like others on this board, have no reason to listen. You need to take the initiative: put down the popular books, pick up a textbook, work out some examples, and convince us that you have a mastery of the basics before you even think about relativity.

EDIT: added 'velocity' qualifier

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,12:52   

Hi Creeky Belly,

Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the non-linear equations inherent in real-world six-degree of freedom situations.  This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames.  I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.

When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it.  You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.

I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers.

But first I have to understand it.

I understand what Penrose is saying.

It makes sense to me.

It is logical, consistent and provides answers to all of the problems presented (GPS satellites, Twin Paradox, orbiting space ships, red-shifted sunlight, etc).

I am too old to start over in academia and begin sucking up to the established prima donnas by presenting everything in their terms pretending I think they are absolutely right while gently modifying the definition of terms to make a more consistent world view.

I am sorry but asking people to explain why in their terms only results in them telling me to trust them because they know more than I do.  I have long learned that letting others think for me does not work.

Tell me that I am misunderstanding Mankowskian Geometry, and I will try to understand it better based on your suggestions.

Tell me that I am misapplying Penrose's equations, and I will listen (and probably ask for an example of a proper application).

If you tell me I have to go back through the tortuous path of using outdated concepts and outdated terms just to prove I am worthy of the privilege of thinking for myself, then I am not interested, especially since I have already done that.

When someone tells me they understand Penrose's viewpoint well enough to point out the "inarguably contrary implications of Henderson-Darling oscillation and reciprocal inversion", I know I am not far off in my understanding of Penrose’s viewpoint.  However, I will look into this so I can understand it, because I suspect the answer will provide me a deeper understanding.

Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the e-mails.  I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself.  Let me ask you some probing questions.

Do you view the universe as a three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by frame-by-frame as the time passes?

I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.

If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved space-time, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?

Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?

I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...right?

Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(-1) factor.  Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)

So far so good?

Penrose calls this ”space-like”, but that is just his convention.  Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation.  Resulting in a “time-like” arc length segment of…

ds = SQRT(-dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 + dt^2)

or

ds = SQRT(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.

Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional space-time, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,15:10   

Hi Mr Christopher,

You wrote...

Quote
Seriously, stop arguing your idiotic points and start asking intelligent questions.


Ok, seriously.

What is your understanding on the significance of Minkowskian goemetry?

Did I misapply this equation Penrose presented in The Road to Reality?  (chapter 18 is titled "Minkowskian geometry")

ds^2 = dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2

Is curved space-time truely a four dimensional geometry, or is it just three dimensional geometry with time being limited to frame-by-frame snapshots of the 3-D geometry?

Finally, if curved space-time is truely a four dimensional geometry, doesn't that mean the traveling twin can and does take a short cut compared to the homebody twin?

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,15:19   

Quote
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Whether you believe me or not, I have spent years developing computerized models that deal with the non-linear equations inherent in real-world six-degree of freedom situations.  This not only included force, acceleration, velocity and position vectors in both absolute and relative frames.  I also had to deal with moments of inertial and quaternians with matrix transfer functions.

When I said "I work with plenty of people with PhDs" I meant it.  You can feel sorry for them now, because I have been the interface between them and turning their concepts into reality.

I am good at understanding things well enough to explain it to management and programmers.

It's quite evident from your statements about orbits that you don't have the first clue about vector calculus or Newtonian dynamics. I've been trying to focus on the science, you turn around and focus on people. I don't care what you've done in the past, I don't care about Roger Penrose. If you spout nonsense about physics, I'm going to call you on it.
     
Quote
Creeky Belly, you have been reasonably supportive of me, especially in the e-mails.  I sense that you are earnestly looking for a better understanding yourself.  Let me ask you some probing questions.

Do you view the universe as a three-dimensional Euclidean Geometry that clicks by frame-by-frame as the time passes?

I suspect that is how most people think of the universe.

If you do too, how does that correspond with the concept of curved space-time, gravity wells, Black holes, etc?

Do you accept that time is one of four complex dimensions?

I am presuming you understand the Euclidean arc segment of…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...right?

Presuming you don’t have a problem with complex numbers then dt could (and would) have a SQRT(-1) factor.  Coming up with the arc length segment of the four dimensional space results in…

dl = SQRT(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 – dt^2)

So far so good?

Penrose calls this ”space-like”, but that is just his convention.  Another convention he uses is to flip the complex dimensions to the perpendicular orientation.  Resulting in a “time-like” arc length segment of…

ds = SQRT(-dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2 + dt^2)

or

ds = SQRT(dt^2 - dx^2 - dy^2 - dz^2)

Which is the equation I used to solve the Twin Paradox.

Final question, do you understand and accept truly four dimensional space-time, or are you really thinking a 3+1 modification of Euclidean Geometry because you don’t want to let go of familiar concepts?

I understand Minkowskian geometry, moreover I know when it's applicable. When you gave your example of the traveling twin, I showed that the solution came from both accelerating to +0.8c and -0.8c, you can show that the traveling twin enters a non-inertial reference frame and thus the conflict is resolved. The fact that you're still arguing about physics from special relativity is telling, you need general relativity at least to have any knowledge of gravity.

Here's the catch with Minkowskian geometry: space-like separated events are not causally connected in the classical relativistic picture. If you want to argue that they are, you can perform some experiments to test this. The fact that you can flip signs around doesn't mean anything unless there's a physical effect that we can measure.

Look, I've been reasonably supportive to the point where I'm genuinely interested in the physics research you present. However, when you say things that are demonstrably false, and chide people for holding on to outdated scientific dogma, I get a little annoyed. You complain that we're arguing from authority (I'm not, I'm arguing from the principles of physics), then you turn around and do exactly that. Man up and show me you know what you're talking about.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,16:07   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,13:52)
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Given your track record thus far, you should be able to see why it might be a fairly safe bet.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1202
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,17:18   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Jan. 25 2008,16:07)
Quote (Thought Provoker @ Jan. 25 2008,13:52)
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?

Given your track record thus far, you should be able to see why it might be a fairly safe bet.

My sister assumes our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space and she can't even balance a checkbook.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1039
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,18:41   

Quote
Do you honestly think I don't know how to do vector math if we assume our universe is Euclidean three dimensional space?



Considering that you think the universe is a giant beach ball that you can take a short-cut through, yes, you don't know vector math.  Furthermore, TP, you have no idea short of a Vanity Fair treatment of what is meant by space-time.

You, sir, are a clueless idiot.  Clueless because you don't have a clue, and an idiot because you persist in demonstrating your cluelessness.

Otherwise you wouldn't be at a BIOLOGY forum on a thread YOU started comparing Mike Gene (who?) and Dr. Dr. Dembski (the wacko dimwit from Waco) discussing your pathetic understanding of physics.

Why don't you go hang around your local WalMart and bug shoppers?

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:00   

Hi Doc Bill,

Feeling encouraged by your admission that I'm giving at least a Vanity Fair treatment of this subject.

I have started another thread.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5409
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 25 2008,22:17   

Ignorance is bliss, part deux.

Thread closed.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
  204 replies since Jan. 04 2008,22:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (7) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]