Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Enoch 2021

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,423
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Everything posted by Enoch 2021

  1. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    So the EXPERIMENT that Validates "gravity" is responsible for attracting then holding GASSES (The Atmosphere) to the Earth --- Violating the Laws of Entropy and ground squirrel level reasoning is... 1) the weight of an empty CO2 fire extinguisher vs the weight of a full one. 2) The weight of an empty scuba tank vs the weight of a full one. 3) The weight of an empty nitrogen tank (used by race crews to power tools at the track) vs the weight of a full one. And lol, since these are 'Experiments' (according to you and your cohorts), Please Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis and identify the Independent and Dependent Variables for EACH...? And can you please tell us the difference bewteeen a "Closed System" ( CO2, Scuba, and Nitrogen TANK) and an "Open System" (Earth and THE ATMOSPHERE) --- My Argument, Mr. Straw Man Fallacy...? And we're still waiting for you to show us The Walls and ROOF for your claim: "Earth is the Container"...? regards
  2. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Maybe cause it has more "stuff' in it. I was responding to this trainwreck... paisan: "Gravity attracts matter toward the center of the planet .... including any gas.' Pretty much the same trainwreck your proffered earlier in this thread, then....WHOLESALE DODGED quite a number of times !!! "ALWAYS" --- unless it's Physically Hindered --- it's called the Laws of Entropy, Gilligan. Really?? And...., Go ahead? You kinda have to know what something 'is' BEFORE you claim it's responsible for something else. If not, you're simply extrapolating off an Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy). 1. False Analogy Fallacy 2. We're not interested in 'descriptions' ---that which Equations (Math) @ Best are only capable of, we're interested in EXPLANATIONS. Any idiot can 'describe' something. 3. Math (Equations) don't/can't 'PREDICT' anything They could, because all you have is a Fairytale Equation... If all you have is the "Mathematical Form" supporting that it's " GRAVITY " (5 - 3 = 2 ), then how do you know, it's not: " Duccolslopelgerts " (6 - 4 = 2), " Kinichifucolsloms " (7 - 5 = 2), " Wiggleytiggleyskurts " (8 - 6 = 2) ad infinitum that's ACTUALLY at play in lieu of "Gravity"....? Moreover, that "Mathematical Form" (Newtonian Gravity) that you're 'Stage 5 Clinging To' has been relegated to dust bin of History... For the 10th Time... "Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientifi...ge-nonlocality/ AGAIN, Define NOT ...? Furthermore, to stay ON TOPIC...Can you show GASSES (Nitrogen, Helium, Hydrogen, Methane ect) being attracted toward Earth at a rate of ~9.86 m/s^2 ...???? regards
  3. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Yes Well prior to your Feeble Diversion and hammering the c4 fire with: the same way you can have water pressure without a container" my point was 'gravity' (Whatever that is, lol) has no attractive affect on GASSES. 'duh' You can't have WATER PRESSURE there Gilligan...without a Container EITHER. my word Goodness gracious. regards
  4. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    and then you call me silly. Can you show the Walls and Roof...? Right, so... Please post the Experiment that Validates your claim...? (Citation Please) i.e., Post The Formal Scientific Hypothesis; then Highlight the "Independent" and Dependent Variables...? 1. Begging The Question Fallacy x 2: 'gravity' and 'gravity attracts'. 2. Any GAS, eh? So what about: Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Helium, Methane ect...??? 1. Begging The Question Fallacy x 2: 'gravitational force'. 2. 'gravity' is not a "FORCE", young SkyWalker. SEE: George Musser and your 'scientific community'. regards
  5. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Yes, it's called "Science" (lol) And, weighing marbles then adding more marbles then weighing it again ---identifying the difference; THEN concluding (rotflol): "The Marbles are affected by 'gravity' is so Stupefyingly Nonsensical the English Language is ill suited to capture the sheer Absurdity. It's not 'attracted down', you have the "GAS" trapped in a CONTAINER (!!), Gilligan. And for about the 35th Time, why aren't: Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Helium, Methane, ect (GASSES) 'attracted down', professor ?? Yes, like answering "what color is a Blue Wall??" and the response is: "Sweet". Gilligan, The Natural Tendency for a Gas is to Increase Entropy (High to Low Pressure) and dissipate gradients until equilibrium is reached. You are aware that the diffusion solute particles --- and a PRESSURE GRADIENT with respect to partial pressures of GASES, always moves DOWN a concentration/pressure gradient respectively until uniform concentration/pressure is achieved, RIGHT?? It's called Equilibrium !!! "Thus the diffusion of solute particles takes place down the concentration gradient (A PRESSURE GRADIENT with respect to partial pressure of GASES) until uniform concentration is achieved". [ i.e., until equilibrium is reached ]Chatterjea, MN., Shinde, R: Textbook of Medical Biochemistry; 8th Edition, p. 817 So, Show the elevation where EQUILIBRIUM is reached and MAINTAINED in our atmosphere....? LOL Sure, that's exactly what they're saying... "Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ Define NOT ...? 1. Technically (or any other way), it wasn't an Experiment. It was a flippin joke! 2. Why in the World would you need a Vacuum to show how a Non-Vacuum (GASSES) is affected by 'gravity'? Well, Errr...if you can't EXPLAIN "The Cause" of your Fairytale Force, then... you very well can't EXPLAIN then VALIDATE your claim 'gravity' ---("The Why/How "). SEE: 'duccolslopellgertzz' is just as VALID as your claim. (previous post.) Unbelievable. Really?? So (lol), you're saying that this... "Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ ...is saying that the 'Scientific Community' follows Newtonian Gravity, eh? And the Declaration of Independence is a Treatise on the GNP of the Netherlands. Sure. Begging The Question Fallacy: " due to 'gravity' ". Errr, you have yet to VALIDATE 'gravity' !! It wasn't, that's kinda the point !! Along with 5 other Non-Sequitur (Fallacies). And it wasn't an EXPERIMENT for numerous reasons, but this is the Belly Laugher: So "The EFFECT" ( Dependent Variable ---"Prediction" ) is "gravitational pull". "The CAUSE" (Independent Variable) of gravitational pull is PRESSURE ?? regards
  6. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Ahhh, no I don't think that (lol). And... How can it... since you said, StormanNorman--- "water pressure without a container". Errr.... a Liquid "Water" ALWAYS conforms to the shape of it's container. So how can you have Water Pressure... without a Container ?? Absolutely Unbelievable Isn't the Balloon, Errr....the Container?? So again, How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? my word sir
  7. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Errr... is Water a Liquid?? THEN... "A liquid is a nearly incompressible fluid that conforms to the shape of its container." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid And... "The *PRESSURE OF A GAS* is the force that the gas exerts *on the walls of its container.*" http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html So I say again... How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? regards
  8. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Oh, I can't 'weight'. The only question is, will it rival your Entropy, Scientific Hypothesis - Independent Variable, Time, EinsHsteinan, Light Speed, ect... stupefying trainwrecks of the past ?? The 1600's called, they want their arguments back!! Pssst... "Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientifi...ge-nonlocality/ Newton himself wasn't exactly enamored/married to the idea... In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... “That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52 I do believe, Sir Isaac is calling into question your mental faculties sir. Why are you attempting to "EXPLAIN" something with a De-Bunked idea that your very own "Scientific Community" pays no mind to ?? AND, we're not looking for 'Descriptions', we're looking for EXPLANATIONS !! What Experiment ?? Begging The Question Fallacy: 'gravity', Validate this first!! And what CAUSES "MASS"...? Profound!!! Have you submitted this to the Nobel Committee yet?? I have a Feeling Great Googly Moogly!!! What's the gas "attracted to"...the Scale ?? What happens to the "MASS" if we remove Fjuri's ball (Container) ?? ps. Yes, this DOES "Rival' your other stupefying trainwrecks !! (Which I didn't think was possible). regards and oy vey
  9. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    It wasn't an experiment (LOL), it was the clumsiest Non-Sequitur Fallacy I've heard in some time, congrats!! A juvenile explanation of a "duh" scenario; Basically... A. You have a ball with some amount of air....you weigh it. B. Then you add some more air...you weight it. The Ball weighs more in B, Therefore: 'Gravity' affects GASSES !!! Essentially, A. I have some marbles in a bag...I weigh it. B. I put some more marbles in the bag...I weight it. Since B weighs more, French Toast is better than Pancakes. You call that tear jerkin belly laugher above an Explanation?? AND, You have another BIG Problem... "Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ Newton himself wasn't exactly enamored/married to the idea... In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: "Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... “That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52 I do believe, Sir Isaac is calling into question your mental faculties sir. Why are you attempting to "EXPLAIN" something with a De-Bunked idea that your very own "Scientific Community" pays no mind to ?? LOL, How bout on these Gasses: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ?? This isn't a Scientific Hypothesis, Gilligan. It's a Begging the Question Fallacy, Declaration. So "The EFFECT" ( Dependent Variable ---"Prediction" ) is "gravitational pull". "The CAUSE" (Independent Variable) of gravitational pull is PRESSURE ?? It's not even coherent !!! You also need to call Sir Martin Rees and tell him that YOU have the answer to what CAUSES gravity... Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/astrophysicist: "WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science†being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest." {emphasis mine} http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.html Can you please post the content of that discussion?? (After Professor Rees is resuscitated from laughing to near death!!) Apparently: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane, ect... didn't get the Memo And 'gravity' is NOT a Force, Young Skywalker. Begging The Question Fallacy: "gravity working" -- is what you have yet to VALIDATE! Just because things "weigh" more when we add more of the same things, doesn't Ipso Facto grant you warrant to state " The 'gravity' force' " by mere Fiat, professor!! I say it's duccolslopelgertzz That's the EXACT OPPOSITE of what George Musser just told us. (SEE above: "Magic", Invisible "Force", ect) Oh and you forgot these... Then for fun: 1. How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? 2. And, @ what speed does the atmospheric gases have to be "Spinning" @ 300 miles above the equator (Thermosphere) if the equator is "Spinning" @ 1037 mph...? Please show the "Mechanism" i.e., Please elucidate the specific type of INTER-MOLECULAR BONDS between the Gases (LOL) AND between the Gases and Rotating Solid availing this feat of Preposterous Ludicrous Contradictory Absurdity --- from the Black Lagoon...? regards
  10. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Where's the 'gravity' part?? And which one--- Newtonian or EinsHstienian ?? Ahhh: 1. What Causes Mass...? Errr... Mass doesn't = 'gravity'. And.... Mass and Weight are 2 Different Animals...but I'm sure you already knew that. 2. So for clarity: The Formal Scientific Hypothesis is....? Independent Variable.....? Dependent Variable....? Then show how your Non-Existent Hypothesis reveals 'gravity' stage 5 clinging to the atmosphere (all levels)...? Then for fun: 1. How can you have a Gas Pressure...without a Container ?? 2. And, @ what speed does the atmospheric gases have to be "Spinning" @ 300 miles above the equator (Thermosphere) if the equator is "Spinning" @ 1037 mph...? Please show the "Mechanism" i.e., Please elucidate the specific type of INTER-MOLECULAR BONDS between the Gases (LOL) AND between the Gases and Rotating Solid availing this feat of Preposterous Ludicrous Contradictory Absurdity --- from the Black Lagoon...? Thanks in advance.
  11. Enoch 2021

    America's Changing Religious Landscape

    Why didn't you post 1 (a) Mr. Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy ??? : "the state of religious". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion nothing like defining a Word with the Same Word!! Kinda Circular dontcha think?? How bout: the service and worship of nature (??) As mentioned, the Object of worship/service/adherence is quite irrelevant. Or: 2. "a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Maybe because it has 'religious" in the definition of "Religion" AGAIN ?? (Laughingly Circular) Or: 3. "archaic : scrupulous conformity". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion kinda ambiguous ?? Or: 4. "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion Why not this one?? Ha ha ha... "Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: YE MUST HAVE FAITH. It is a quality which the scientist cannot dispense with." {emphasis mine} Max Planck (Nobel Prize, Physics): WHERE IS SCIENCE GOING; 1932 Define "FAITH" (Please CITE a Reference) ...?? I don't prefer, thanks. I haven't come across any source that Explicitly States it; However, I really can't CITE a reference of a Physical Law that starts with: "Nature/Natural Phenomena" either...does that Ipso Facto mean Physical Laws aren't Natural Laws?? Ya SEE, it's IMPLIED. Nope. I'm saying that the "Secular Take/Narrative" of believing in God... is without evidence. (You know, the: sticking the fingers in the ears, blindfolded, saying La La La over and over again motif.) THEN... They Frivolously and Fallaciously Juxtapose: "Science" and "Religion" ("Science vs Faith" motif) in a feeble clumsy attempt to somehow color the former with legitimacy; and hence... color the latter as mere faiytale "Belief". Of course, the ones propagating the poorly contrived (and executed) False Dichotomy Fallacy Color Commentary Comparison along with the hordes of wanna be "wiki/google' scientist fairytale atheists...wouldn't know what either were if they landed on their head, spun around, and whistled dixie !!!! But this Color Commentary False Dichotomy Fallacy Sign Post, along with the incoherent hordes propagating it INCESSANTLY in Shangri-La, muddies the water sufficiently...so that Joe Coffee and Betty Breadmaker --- if they can get their attention off of: Debt, Kids, Jobs, American Idol, Cheese Fries, 'My Vote Counts' et al (General Life Concerns) --- that might wonder into the fray of LIFE'S biggest questions, are suddenly met with the barrage of Pseudo-Scientific and Logical trainwrecks which most just don't have the time to ferret out The REAL TRUTH of the Matter from the background noise and/or are so overwhelmed with Peer Pressure and 'The Majority'... that they let themselves be convinced that: Since transistors work; Therefore...evolution/something from nothing/multiverses/dark matter/big bangs/billion of years, ad nauseam, are Scientific FACTS and REALITY !!!! Perhaps you should go back an actually READ the PUMMELING of your trainwreck appeal here that I systematically dismantled --- ad nauseam, to you personally...how many times?? (@ least 10) Scripture refers to HIM as Spirit...sure isn't 'Matter'. HE is most assuredly not "A Concept". You said you went to 'uni' for religious studies?? If so, you should immediately appeal to them for a FULL REFUND...you have an Open/Shut Case! Well he's not a "A Concept" Mr Straw Man Fallacy. A Better Question is: How did "Matter" create itself ?? Did it pre-exist prior to it's existence...then Poofed Itself into reality?? Sir, you 'believe' that (Short List): Ink/Paper/Glue molecules can author Technical Instruction Manuals/Blue Prints and Something can come form Nothing, "Naturally". So your assessment of others "VIEWS" is kinda Inadmissible...it strains credulity well past critical mass. No I think I got it... Atheism -- a Positive Claim concerning the absence of A Deity. Really?? CITE it please...? So you're a Supernatural Atheist ?? Define Supernatural and give a few examples...? Actually, I'm not. Ya don't say?? Perhaps they want to stay somewhat logically consistent. What on Earth sir?? I said Cosmology is Pseudo-Science. Can you please "Quote Me" --- Date and Time Stamped, to SUPPORT your Nonsensical Buffoonery...? Logic. And Dawkins just called, he wants his trainwreck "Who Created The Creator" argument back --- so he can bury that Pummeled Buffoonery, properly. Ya see, He is the CREATOR. The "CREATOR" can't be "created" or else, HE couldn't be the "CREATOR", by simple definition. Furthermore Logically....for finite things to exist (Universe, Us), there MUST be an Infinite/Eternal "Always Was" Source; it's a Contingent Necessity (Antecedent). SEE: Aristotle (Prime/Unmoved Mover, First Cause). To deny this, you are forced into a logical checkmate then reduced to introducing an Infinite Regress (like you just did in your query)...it's Fallacious. Nothing can CREATE itself...... because that would mean: It Existed Prior To It's Existence. Logical Seppuku Also, there can be Only One "CREATOR"...considering more than one, even for a Planck Time, is Logical Seppuku. Sure. Ahhh, You forgot to state what the "so-called" 'hindering pedantry' actually was Is it common practice for you to charge people with a conjured 'Label' --- of whatever sways you @ the time, without giving Specific SUPPORT to Warrant that Label ?? Do you think you can hide/cloak your utter inability to coherently respond to points by conjuring ad hominems (Fallacies) ?? Ahhh, WE SEE YOU !! (duh) Object means "MATTER"---The Physical (Tangible). Ahhh Gilligan, Matter (an Object)... doesn't EXIST in Superposition of itself The Wave Function is a 'DESCRIPTION' of the Superposition "Concept", it's a mathematical construct that assists in 'Describing' Experimental Results... Regarding The Wave Function: "This wave here is not a physical wave, it does not carry any energy. And it's not even a property of a beam of photons, it's a property of one photon....The Wave is purely mathematical, it's a construct we use to determine what will happen in this experiment." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (20:30 mark.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK2eFv7ne_Q regards
  12. Enoch 2021

    Proving A Negative

    An interesting twist...Very Well Played Then have a Billboard @ each station a promoting a Contest: 'Define the "Scientific Theory" of evolution'...guess how many different answers you'd get ? I doubt they would rival the BLANK sheets of Paper . The winner gets an imitation fossilized Finch Beak! regards
  13. Enoch 2021

    Proving A Negative

    The Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence; HOWEVER (and that's a BIG 'however')... when it is 'reasonable' to expect evidence, and there is NONE, THEN the Absence of evidence IS evidence of Absence. That brings up something funny, I told this guy the other day that TIME is not "Physical"...he said PROVE IT !! I said, Post the Chemical Formula and location of "Time"...? He ignored that retort right quick and said I couldn't 'Prove it'. Then I said the Absence/Non-Existence of the Physical attributes of 'TIME' is THE EVIDENCE of the Absence of the Physical Attributes of TIME. (lol) That was a 'Bridge Too Far' for him. regards
  14. Enoch 2021

    America's Changing Religious Landscape

    Really?? Well go ahead and post the definition...? And the amount of TIME spent 'in something' doesn't offer any veracity whatsoever to your knowledge of it. Heck, just look @ evolutionary biologists...they haven't the first clue what evolution even is!! So? People 'SAY' alot of different things. What on Earth?? Ahhh, God is not an 'OBJECT'. And there wouldn't be 'OBJECTS' EXISTING in the first place without a "KNOWER" First. Well Atheism is a 'Belief'---"A Concept", so it doesn't SAY anything because 'Concepts' aren't alive and don't have Vocal Chords; Ergo...Reification Fallacy. It's quite apodictic that the foundational tenet of Atheism is that the Physical/Material World is all that exists. A Supernatural Atheist rivals Married Bachelors. Sure. Ahhh Begging The Question (Fallacy): where'd you get the Human; then, the Human Mind?? Can you please post the Chemical Structure of the "Mind"...? That's why we LUV YA, your OCD like attention to excrutiating detail !! (And your Incessant Affinity to Straw Man Fallacy your opponents into Oblivian !!) Gilligan, I never said or even remotely implied that "NOTHING" exists outside Human Counciousness. I CITED this... "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. https://www.scientif...197911_0158.pdf And as I said previously, God is not an OBJECT--- " MATTER ". And my argument is " MATTER " doesn't exist without "A Knower"... “The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160 Sir Rudolph Peierls PhD Nuclear Physics.... "The moment at which you can throw away one possibility and keep only the other is when you finally become conscience of the fact that the experiment has given one result... You see, the quantum mechanical description is in terms of knowledge, and knowledge requires SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS." {emphasis mine} The Ghost in the Atom, p. 73-74 So when you decide to get to the ACTUAL ARGUMENT --- in lieu of the clumsy incoherent trainwrecks (Fallacies) you proffer, you make sure and let us know, mmm K? Yes, with 100% Certitude. And can SUPPORT it EMPIRICALLY till the cows come home. Both are TRUE, Mr. False Dichotomy Fallacy. What is 'my version' of QM...? Then, your feeble appeal implies 'other' versions eh? Post the 'other versions' --- And SUPPORTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE for each --- to SUPPORT your ongoing --- @ Light Speed, trainwreck....? regards
  15. Enoch 2021

    Does Evolution Violate Natural Law/abiogenesis?

    I never said that it didn't 'RELATE', and in fact showed it's RELATionship... Gibbs Free Energy: It also Explicity states as much in the Citation I provided... "The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct. http://www.nmsea.org..._is_entropy.htm There is no 'Other' meaning, just ONE meaning...and it's in the Citation above. regards
  16. Enoch 2021

    America's Changing Religious Landscape

    Christianity is NOT a 'Religion'. Ya see, 'Religion's' quintessential attribute is Belief without Evidence. The object of that 'Belief' is painfully Irrelevant. But as Christian's, we are admonished to: (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." So pray tell, how can Christianity be a "religion", yet @ the same time... hold completely to the Antithetical Attribute and Foundation of the word? Have you heard of the Law of Non-Contradiction, per adventure? So your (and 99.9999% of society) feeble mindlessly "Parroted" appeal without the least bit of scrutiny Whatsoever... to couch then incoherently cast a negative shadow towards Christianity on the basis of assigning it WITHOUT Coherent WARRANT to a category 'religion' --- of which, it is antithetical to... by mere clumsy Ipse Dixit Fiat, strains ground squirrel level reasoning and credulity well WELL past Critical Mass !!! Can we get to the ACTUAL Case ?? ... Let's talk about your 'Religion' --- Materialism/Realism/Methodological Naturalism (Atheism). As a matter of fact, it's Blind/Deaf/Dumb and Scientifically Falsified...RELIGION !!!! The ENTIRE foundation of which holds that Matter exists INDEPENDENT of Perception/ Consciousness. Have you heard of Quantum Mechanics, per adventure?? You know, the most Experimentally Verified/Validated field of "Actual" Science in the history of man? The same that has sent Materialism/Realism (Atheism) into the Incoherent Oblivion !! ... Cause Ahhh, you have some BIG Problems : Namely, being in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to Literally Thousands of EXPERIMENTS ("SCIENCE") !!!!!!! "The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness [Materialism/Realism --- aka: Atheism] turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment."--- Bernard d'Espagnat (Particle Physicist): The Quantum Theory and Reality; Scientific American, 1979, p. 151. https://www.scientificamerican.com/media/pdf/197911_0158.pdf KaBooM !!!! Have you seen these, Mr. Anecdotes (??) ... 1. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior when the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. http://cds.cern.ch/record/381875/files/9903047.pdf 2. Gröblacher, S. et al. (2007): An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature 446, pp. 871-875. ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7138/full/nature05677.html ) In this Landmark Paper, the authors violate both Bell's Inequality (again) and Leggett's Inequality revealing that the concept of locality is not consistent with Quantum Experiments and that intuitive features of Realism should be abandoned. Physicsworld April 20 2007, speaking to this experiment, went as far as to claim that ‘quantum physics says goodbye to reality.’ New Scientist 'Reality Check' 23 June 2007..."There is no objective reality beyond what we observe". 3. The Outcome Observed Reality depends on the Measurements @ that time and can't be predicted prior to that. Confirmed by Validating the Kochen-Specker Theorem: Lapkiewicz, R; Zeilinger, A: Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system: Nature, 474, 490–493, June 2011. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7352/full/nature10119.html Speaking to this experiment in... Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20600-quantum-magic-trick-shows-reality-is-what-you-make-it/ (See Parent Paper Nature Paper Above)... “There is no sense in assuming that what we do not measure about a system has [an independent] reality,†Zeilinger concludes." "Kochen, now at Princeton University in New Jersey, is also happy. “Almost a half century after Specker and I proved our theorem, which was based on a [thought] experiment, real experiments now confirm our result,†he says.' Steinberg [Quantum Physicist] is impressed: “This is a beautiful experiment.†If previous experiments testing entanglement shut the door on hidden variables theories, the latest work seals it tight. “It appears that you can’t even conceive of a theory where specific observables would have definite values that are independent of the other things you measure,†adds Steinberg. Ananthaswamy, A: Quantum magic trick shows reality is what you make it; New Scientist, June 2011. That Echo's from... “The atoms or elementary particles themselves ARE NOT REAL; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts." Werner Heisenberg (Nobel Laureate, Physics); Physics and Philosophy, p.160 “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.†Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist) 4. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again). "The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." [**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] "No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ 5. Manning A.G et al. (2015): Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment with a single atom; Nature Physics 11, 539–542, doi:10.1038/nphys3343."Our experiment confirms Bohr’s view that it does not make sense to ascribe the wave or particle behaviour to a massive particle before the measurement takes place". http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v11/n7/abs/nphys3343.html 6. Hensen, B et al. (2015): Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres; Nature 526, 682–686, doi:10.1038/nature15759"Our data hence imply statistically significant rejection of the local-realist null hypothesis." i.e., Goodbye Realism for the 1875th TIME!!!http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v526/n7575/abs/nature15759.html Got another ~ 1875 Experiments that support these conclusions, Without Exception(!!) but they would be well beyond So, anymore 'Anecdotes' from among your religious circles? Frankly @ this point, Phlogiston and 13th Century Alchemy look "Cutting Edge" compared to your trainwreck religion. Hope it helps
  17. Enoch 2021

    Objective Of Discussion

    It's not. (If you wanna see a REAL TEXTBOOK Straw Man (Fallacy) go review your trainwreck treatise on Entropy). Nobody said it EXPLICITLY, but it surely was heavily IMPLICIT... "Wouldn't he point out that those are just "mathematical models" constructed with "what we know from physics and astronomy"? If somebody wrote a book about "A MAN", but never actually called him a man, but wrote: " HE, son, grandson, bachelor, male, ect ..." even though "MAN" was never written EXPLICITLY can we reasonably conclude the IMPLICIT ?? This isn't a Straw Man Fallacy either. SEE response directly above: IN TOTO. Well: hammers, wrenches, screwdrivers, sockets, are tools used to construct Bicycles; yet, neither individually (or collectively)... are Bicycles. regards
  18. Enoch 2021

    Proving A Negative

    2 - 4 = - 2 And (lol particularly hard), "You can't Prove a Negative" is ITSELF... "A NEGATIVE"; Ergo, if you could prove the statement true, it would inherently be FALSE !! This is "Parroted" and quipped incessantly without the least bit of scrutiny; the ACTUAL Argument is: "You can't disprove Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacy)". e.g., Dark Matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole. Disprove IT! If not, Therefore... it must be TRUE!! regards
  19. Enoch 2021

    Does Evolution Violate Natural Law/abiogenesis?

    So were mine. Then you went on to talk about forming 'Large Molecules' from 'Small Molecules' --- that IMMEDIATELY Invokes... Gibbs Free Energy. Since we are talking about chemistry--- "Chemical Reactions" and whether these reactions occur Spontaneously vs Non-Spontaneously we use "DeltaG" --- Gibbs Free Energy: See this... "If a reaction [This is a CHEMICAL REACTION] is unfavorable for both enthalpy (H > 0 ) and entropy (S < 0 ) changes, then the reaction will be NON-Spontaneous at any Temperature." https://www.chem.tam...files/gibbs.htm When we just want to ponder the mysteries of "Entropy Change" ( DS = q/T ), then we'll focus here. I read it; you were. You tried to conflate the two issues ( Chemical Reactions IN already existing Biological Systems VS. Chemical Reactions OUTSIDE Biological Systems ); like you've been feebly attempting for some years now and been stopped in your tracks more times than I can count. piasan: "There is no reaction in the formation of the large biological molecules from smaller ones that violates the laws of thermodynamics." Yes, there is...If your story is LIFE formed "Spontaneously" from: Sugars, Nucleobases, Activated Phosphates, AA's, Fats. And then 'your' RATIONALE to conflate the issue: piasan: "If there were, it would not be possible for living things to grow and develop." And here you go again ... Save for... Gibbs Free Energy: (Basically 2LOT ) To Refute---Simple, Please show ONE "Functional" DNA or 30 mer RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) form Spontaneously "Naturally" outside a living cell/organism --- from their respective Building Blocks (Sugars, Nucleo-Bases, Activated Phosphates, and AA's)...? Until such time, you're 'Whistl'n Incoherently Past The Graveyard". Thanks Captain Obvious; isn't everything in our reality made up of Non-Living Matter ?? A Rocket Engine is made up of Iron and Copper ect (Non-Living) --- are Rocket Engines merely an Emergent Property of these Elements?? If yes, please show the Mechanism/Process...? I did, poignantly. Your feeble attempt @ obfuscation is already well beyond exposed. regards
  20. Enoch 2021

    Does Evolution Violate Natural Law/abiogenesis?

    Huh?? ... "The word entropy is sometimes confused with energy. Although they are related quantities, they are distinct. As described in previous sections, energy measures the capability of an object or system to do work. Entropy, on the other hand, is a measure of the "disorder" of a system. What "disorder refers to is really the number of different microscopic states a system can be in, given that the system has a particular fixed composition, volume, energy, pressure, and temperature. By "microscopic states", we mean the exact states of all the molecules making up the system." http://www.nmsea.org/Curriculum/Primer/what_is_entropy.htm Save for the Fairytale "Just-So" Story of Abiogenesis. Incoherent Straw Man Fallacy: we're discussing "so-called" PRE-Life, before Life --- Abiogenesis. Of course there's no problem with 2LOT once you already have "LIFE" Existing. Why? Well, You already have the SPECIFIC Energy Converter (i.e., Mitochondria/Chloroplasts/Metabolic Pathways --- Read "Functional Proteins") and INFORMATION Program (DNA) ALREADY EXISTING so as to capture, convert, and use the energy meaningfully. Without the SPECIFIED Energy Converter and Information Program, this (among numerous other ROADBLOCKS) is your Huckleberry... Gibbs Free Energy: The reactions to form Nucleosides then Nucleotides ( "Functional" DNA/RNA) and AA's ---> "Functional" Proteins are DeltaG "POSITIVE" --- Non-Spontaneous --- Endothermic (H +), and (S - ) .... "If a reaction is unfavorable for both enthalpy (H > 0 ) and entropy (S < 0 ) changes, then the reaction will be NON-Spontaneous at any Temperature." https://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/majors/tutorialnotefiles/gibbs.htm This is the only Pathway you have... Dr. Leslie Orgel's last Published Words after more than 50 Years of OOL Research... "However, solutions offered by supporters of geneticist or metabolist scenarios that are dependent on “if pigs could fly†hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Orgel LE (2008): The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth, PLoS Biology. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0060018 Stop back when you're ready to discuss the ACTUAL ARGUMENT and "Pigs Start Flying". regards
  21. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Let's keep it simple for you, Do you understand, that... "The scientific method requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY." http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html "The only way things change in Physics is Experiments. ...Everything is based on EXPERIMENT, that's the only way we change our mind." Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Wave Theory of Light. ( .22 second mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tKPLfZ9JVQ So for the 8th Time(!!) lol, Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity', has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? You know, to SUPPORT your claim. Thanks! ( I suppose we shouldn't hold our breath @ this point, eh? )
  22. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Complete Mis-Spelling: It's Non-SequitUr. Perhaps if you could spell the words you use correctly, it might lend a little more credulity to the CONJURED Baseless 'bare' Ipse Dixit Assertions (Fallacies) you incoherently toss out here in lieu of coherent replies. So you're saying the definition of Entropic Force (below) is Out-Of-Context ?? ... Entropic force is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the tendency of a thermodynamic system to maximize its entropy. https://arxiv.org/ft...0/1310.4139.pdf Can you show where and how this is OUT-OF-CONTEXT for us...? lol 1. Argument to Age (Fallacy) 2. Would you like to "COHERENTLY" refute Professor Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics) with something more recent...? You know, to SUPPORT your feebly contrived (and executed) Innuendo here? So you're saying that 'gravity' is both a Scientific Law and a Scientific Theory, eh?? Can you provide another example, like: The Theories of Thermodynamics...? I think you need to spend some time with what "PREDICTIONS" (and Basic Reasoning), as in the "SCIENTIFIC" Variety, mean; as opposed to recognition of Patterns and Regularities and 'clumsily' calling them Scientific "Predictions". It's about as irrelevant as Hydrogen is irrelevant to Water For the 6th Time: Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity' has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? Then explain and illustrate WHY it doesn't affect these GASES: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ect...? Nope. False Analogy Fallacy on Steroids: 1. When you're ENTIRE Position is based on a Specific Phenomenon --- that has as it's rationale --- a Fairytale Begging The Question ("Just-So" Story) for WHY the ball is dropping; then well...you have some issues. 2. In your little clumsily contrived Fallacy here...the Ball is dropping. The Actual Argument is "Gasses"; and pssst --- they're NOT "DROPPING" So, according to YOU, these are the only options (You MUST pick one, LOL): A. We have the Law of Gravitation (Newton) and Theory of Gravitation (Newton) --- which both are the Exact Same Statement. B. We have the Law of Gravitation (Newton) and the 'theory of gravity' (EinsHtien)--- which explains the WHY for Newton's Law. Meanwhile back @ the ranch... Clearly establishes that "EinsHstein and Newton's" Just-So stories are not only Mutually Exclusive but One (Newton's --- "Invisible Force")...is Crapola: "For instance, Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction." Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.--- (Is the 'recent' enough for you ??) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/ The tangled incoherent webs you weave, eh? 1. Well if you couldn't; then...it probably wouldn't be an 'Equation' then, now would it? (LOL) 2. You need to go back and review what Mathematics Is and Isn't. (Pay special attention to the: "Physics is not Mathematics" part. An Independent Variable is "THE CAUSE" the Dependent Variable is "The Effect". Are you saying a Number "CAUSED" something ?? Well (Mr. can't even keep track of his own Argument--- mainly because you don't have one), the double slit experiment was presented in retort against your Ipse Dixit DECLARATION of Newtonian "Predictions"... popoi: "If Newtonian physics is such an awful approximation, how do you explain its remarkable success at predicting motion?" SEE The Relevance NOW ?? Incorrect McFly. I CITED the definition of "Entropic Force" from a Reference... Entropic force is an emergent phenomenon resulting from the tendency of a thermodynamic system to maximize its entropy. https://arxiv.org/ft...0/1310.4139.pdf 1. How does this not 'agree' with my assumption when...rotflol, I had no assumption on the definition of "Entropic Force" to begin with? 2. Your INANE appeal is referring to another point in the reference which I DIDN'T CITE, *** Clown. ERGO...is entirely irrelevant; A Clumsy Red Herring Fallacy from the Black Lagoon. Yea, 'duh'...for about 10 posts now since you made the Baseless Claim. It's not MY source. I never CITED the Mind Numbing Claim, McFly. However, since it appears you and they hold the same trainwreck position, Ya Ready??, (here we go again for the 7th TIME): Show ONE Experiment where the Fairytale Begging The Question Fallacy---"Just-So" Story 'gravity' has any affect WHATSOEVER on Gasses...? Then explain and illustrate WHY it doesn't affect these GASES: Helium, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Methane ect...? These Things : " " then a . --- to encapsulate the thought. Next topic: how to tie a bow. Gilligan, "Spontaneous Generation" and the term "Spontaneously" -- in a completely different thought is not Equivocating.(LOL) Ya SEE: Spontaneous Generation is: the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter. Spontaneous: Performed or occurring as a result of a sudden impulse or inclination and without premeditation or external stimulus. e.g., His spontaneous kiss was received with enthusiasm by the girl. Do you have any semblance of a "Coherent" Substantive Argument or Position, by chance? oy vey
  23. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Yep, "The Container Force" Yea Well, do you have a Pre-Schooler there to break it down for you? Are you claiming that a Shark Bite... in lbs per square inch, is Gas Pressure? So the question was: Show ONE EXPERIMENT where 'gravity' (which of course, you don't know which one) "CONSTRAINS" Gases and prevents them from actualizing their Entropic Potential...? And this is your Answer?? 1. Define Non Sequitur Fallacy...? 2. Define Circular Reasoning...? Well, "WORDS"... they mean things. Dictionary Thumping?? How many times have I posted this (20, 25 times now??)... "The *PRESSURE OF A GAS* is the force that the gas exerts *on the walls of its container.*" http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Do you know your name? I'm 'denying' your 'belief' in the "Mindlessly Parroted" Pseudo-Scientific Fairytale 'DESCRIPTION' of what should be...an 'EXPLANATION' of a Phenomenon. Sure it has... "There is no model of the theory of gravitation today other than the mathematical form." Richard Feynman (Nobel Prize, Physics), The Character of the Physical Law. Page 39 http://people.virginia.edu/~ecd3m/1110/Fall2014/The_Character_of_Physical_Law.pdf Questions: 1. I thought 'gravity' was a Scientific Law ?? 2. How in the World can you have a 'Mathematical Scientific Theory' when all Mathematics can do--- @ BEST, is 'describe' and ACTUAL Scientific Theories 'EXPLAIN', pray tell ?? 3. Keeping with Feynman's Trainwreck... If all you have is the "Mathematical Form" supporting that it's " GRAVITY " (5 - 3 = 2 ), then how do you know it's not: " Duccolslopelgerts " (6 - 4 = 2), " Kinichifucolsloms " (7 - 5 = 2), " Wiggleytiggleyskurts " (8 - 6 = 2) ad infinitum... that's ACTUALLY at play in lieu of "Gravity"....? We're still getting " 2 ". 4. So when you make up your mind which it is: Scientific Law or Scientific Theory (LOL), then please... If 'gravity' is a "Scientific Theory" then YOU MUST validate it's CAUSE.....? If 'gravity' is a "Scientific Law" then YOU MUST show... The Scientific Law of 'gravity' in Quantum Mechanics; BECAUSE... "The Laws of Physics are always Quantum Mechanical Laws...you don't have separate laws for big and small things. The real question is: how do these very same laws when applied to big things, by big things I mean the things you see in daily life, GIVE THE IMPRESSION that the world is Newtonian?". Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics II. (33:50 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPHoHv05_Wo Best Wishes 1. A Scientific "Prediction" (aka: Dependent Variable) --- The Consequent, differs from the: Jeanne Dixon, Edgar Cayce, Jimmy 'The Greek', Carnival Tent "Prediction" because Scientific "Predictions" (aka: Dependent Variable) have as their NECESSARY Condition ---The Antecedent...an INDEPENDENT VARIABLE . Can you please post the Independent Variable for your "Prediction" Claim above...? 2. Let's see 'The Success' of Newton's "Predictions"... So we have a Double Slit Experiment with a "Newtonian Particle"--- an Electron. We close one slit and fire a Bevy of Electrons and we get 10 hits @ Point A. We close that slit and open the other slit and fire a bevy of Electrons and we get 8 hits @ Point A. The "Newtonian Prediction" would be if we fired the same bevy of Electrons with both slits open we MUST GET 18 hits @ Point A. Well (LOL)... We Get A Big Fat ZERO !! I'm just spit-balling here, but you're gonna need a NEW "Just-So" Story Well, Mr. Incoherent Red Herring Fallacy, I didn't CITE the Reference for it's 'Opinion' on gravity. I CITED the reference for the Definition of The Entropic Force which you requested. If the article eventually discusses the mysteries of Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory @ some point...it's sorta has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER, if I didn't REFERENCE that part specifically. That's not surprising. I think it's well beyond HIGH TIME to be getting on your knees and thanking your 'god' MATTER for the Autonomic Nervous System... cause if you had to Think to Breathe...you'd be in BIG TROUBLE ! See response directly above. Hey Mr. 'Open System' Mcfly... Show ONE Functional DNA or 30 mer RNA or Protein Spontaneously Form "Naturally"... from their respective constituents in our 'Open System'. I'll get the Popcorn. regards
  24. Enoch 2021

    A Conversation With Enoch

    Oh goodness gracious. So is it now just MAKE STUFF UP ?? Please Define Moving the Goal Post Fallacy THEN to SUPPORT you conjured claim SHOW EXACTLY where and How I accomplished it...? Ya Know, to SUPPORT Your Claim. And the big bang isn't REAL SCIENCE...that's why you couldn't post the FIRST STEP of the Scientific Method or The Formal Scientific Hypothesis for it after I requested it TWICE here...and greater than 50 times over the past couple years. duh Where the big bang came from?? What on Earth are you talking about? We know what didn't CAUSE IT...."NATURE"!!! Why, well....1LOT Nature/Natural Phenomenon CAN NOT CREATE or destroy Matter/Energy. And if "Nature" didn't CAUSE IT, then Intelligent Agency did because that's the only choice left. It's called Logic, you should try it some time...it's A RUSH!! And QM "Cherry on Top's" IT Oh it's working. Your proposition is the big bang, your evidence---we don't know it's a mystery. That's a TEXTBOOK... Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html And you clearly implied possible future reconciliation. What on Earth?? Why are you going on about with this buffoonery ?? Reification Fallacy. "Science" doesn't say anything, it doesn't have any Vocal Chords and it's not ALIVE. It doesn't: say, run, jump, swim, point to, do the Hokey Pokey or anything else; it's merely a Method of Inquiry --- The Scientific Method. Au Contraire: The 1000's of Repeated (without Exception !!) Experiments of Quantum Mechanics VALIDATE that the "Necessary Condition" for REALITY (Mass/Energy) EXISTING, is an OBSERVER/"Knower"/Existence of the "Which-Path" Information. a. Observe a Phenomenon: Photons/elementary particles/atoms/molecules exhibit both "Wave-Like" and a Particle behavior--(Not @ the same time). b. Hypothesis: If the "which-path Information" is KNOWN or can be KNOWN then we will observe "No Interference" (Wave-Function Collapse: Matter Existing); Conversely, If the "which-path Information" is NOT Known and never can be KNOWN then we will observe "Interference" (Wave Function Intact: No Matter). Independent Variable: Known vs. Unknown Path. Dependent Variable: Wave Function Collapse. c. Experiment: Which one of the Thousands without Exception would you like?? 1. Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. The authors PUMMEL Naive Realism and take Local-Causality to the Woodshed (again)... "The presence of path information anywhere in the universe is sufficient to prohibit any possibility of interference. It is irrelevant whether a future observer might decide to acquire it. The mere possibility is enough." [**Ergo, The LACK of 'which-path Information' anywhere in the Universe is sufficient enough to prohibit any possibility of Wave Function Collapse. i.e. Formation of Matter!!] "No NAIVE REALISTIC picture is compatible with our results because whether a quantum could be seen as showing particle- or wave-like behavior would depend on a causally disconnected choice. It is therefore suggestive to abandon such pictures altogether."http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ 2. Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5. The authors show not only that "Knowledge" of 'which-path' Information solely collapses "The Wave Function" but can accurately predict future actions of "wave-like" and particle behavior after the Signal Photon has registered and before it's twin Idler has arrived; i.e., QM phenomena transcend Time and Space. SEE also: Walborn SP et al 2002, Scarcelli G et al 2005. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf In conclusion, this Experiment Validates: a. Knowledge (Knowing) the "which-path information" alone causes Wave Function Collapse. b. Decoherence (physical interaction with the measuring devices) DOES NOT cause Wave Function Collapse. c. QM Phenomena transcend Time and Space. i.e., Time and Space have NO MEANING in Quantum Mechanics. Validated and 'Repeated' again by ( ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE )... (1.) Time: "The other arrangement is such that the choice event Ce happens ∼450 μs after the events Is in the reference frame of the source, which is more than 5 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE HIGHER for the amount of delay compared with the previously reported quantum eraser experiment (28)." [ (28) Kim, Y-H. et al. (2000). A Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser; Physical Review Letters 84, pp. 1–5.] http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047v1.pdf ]." Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ (2.) Space: "Our work demonstrates and confirms that whether the correlations between two entangled photons reveal welcher-weg [Which-Way] information or an interference pattern of one (system) photon depends on the choice of measurement on the other (environment) photon, even when all of the events on the two sides that can be space-like separated are space-like separated. The fact that it is possible to decide whether a wave or particle feature manifests itself long after—and even space-like separated from—the measurement teaches us that we should not have any naive realistic picture for interpreting quantum phenomena." .... "This is achieved by independent active choices, which are space-like separated from the interference. Our setup employs hybrid path-polarization entangled photon pairs, which are distributed over an optical fiber link of 55 m in one experiment, or over a free-space link of 144 km in another."Xiao-song Ma et al. (2013): Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, pp. 1221-1226. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3557028/ In Short... In order for " MATTER " to Exist, there MUST BE A " KNOWER " .... FIRST !!! And as I've already EXPLAINED to you, this isn't some Puzzle with no puzzle pieces (as you're feebly and incoherently attempting to categorize it)..it's quite simple... Is the CONJURED 'singularity' Matter/Energy and is it occupying Space?? A YEPPER !! Then... You have only 2 Choices of WHERE it came from: Nature CAUSED it OR... "A Knower" CAUSED it. Scroll up 3 clicks and you'll see the answer. You can't be this dumb; Ergo...you must be Willfully Ignorant. What do these say... "In an experiment, the independent variable is the variable that is varied or manipulated by the researcher, and the dependent variable is the response that is measured." http://www2.uncp.edu/home/collierw/ivdv.htm "An independent variable is a variable that is presumed to cause a change in another variable, and in experimental research, the independent variable is the variable that is manipulated by the researcher. The dependent variable is a variable that is presumed to be influenced by one or more independent variables." http://www.southalabama.edu/coe/bset/johnson/studyq/sq9.htm Independent (Manipulated) Variable - variable changed by the scientist; what the investigator is testing. http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf Who Manipulates the Independent Variable?? It's beyond Pathetic that I would even have to post these. Woe Woe Woe there Gilligan, in your last post, you said...the Independent Variable THE CAUSE was "Change in Seasons", what is this?? So NOW your CAUSE "Independent Variable" is: spatial difference of the Earth and Sun And your Dependent Variable --- Prediction is: a parallax effect in the stars 1. Begging The Question Fallacy --- Please Validate the "Spatial Difference of the Earth and Sun...? If not, it's (AS I SAID and ILLUSTRATED previously) an Affirming the Consequent Formal Logical Fallacy. 2. If you can't Isolate the Spatial Difference between the Earth and Sun (LOL) then you can't ISOLATE your CAUSE; Ergo, this is Meta-Physical Pseudo-Science wrapped in Incoherent"Just-So" Story Telling. THEN right Back to your Incoherent INANITY... When you make up your mind, you let us know. mmm K? 1. Yes 2. Ha ha ha. Well here's the key phrase: "In nonexperimental research" Isn't Experiment the sine qua non of The Scientific Method---Ergo, Science ?? i.e., if you don't have EXPERIMENTS you don't have "Science". Is this clear? So you answer a question with another question?? Time is NOT a dimension, Gilligan. Well 'width', Mr. False Analogy Fallacy, is the measurement of Something Physical. Like a Brick, Tree Branch, Tennis Shoe, ad infinitum. Please show the Physical Something of what TIME is measuring...? Math isn't "Science"/Physics...much like A Tape Measure isn't Carpentry. One of the main reasons is they're different words. Math is Immaterial "Abstract", often rigidly domain specific, and @ BEST...merely "describes"... it "EXPLAINS" exactly Squat/Nada/Niente. Conversely, ACTUAL Scientists are in the business EXPLAINING by Validating/In-Validating "Cause and Effect" relationships between Independent and Dependent Variables via Rigorous Hypothesis TESTING. "That's the whole point about Physics, it's not Mathematics; so it's not a set of axioms from which you derive results. The rules of the game you prepare to change and subsume in an even broader framework." Venkataraman Balakrishnan; Professor of Physics, ITT Madras Introduction to Quantum Physics; Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Time 54:55) According to Mathematics, there's an Infinite Set of numbers between 0 and 1, i.e., if I started @ 0, I can never reach 1; however, whenever I type an "I" followed by a "B" with the same finger on my keyboard... I invariably Pummel this Nonsensical Buffoonery every single time!! Ergo, there's somewhat of a difference between "Abstract" and "Physical Reality". Can you show ONE CASE in all of history where Mathematics CAUSED any Phenomena? You'd have better chances resurrecting Alexander The Great's Horse!! Physics....."PHYSICAL" Concrete. Mathematics..."IMMATERIAL" Abstract. Is there something wrong with this picture? Attempting to "EXPLAIN" the Physical, Immaterially/Abstractly... makes as much sense as suffering from Poison Ivy on the Brain and Scratching it by..... Thinking of Sand Paper !!! And I already debunked your appeal. You can't have an Actual Scientific Hypothesis that has 'a little' Validity. It's like saying, She's ' a little ' pregnant. It is, I have comprehensively illustrated. So you can't "PROVE" things in Science, eh Gilligan?? Then Why Bother? Do you pick that Incoherent Nonsensical Buffoonery up from "wiki" ?? Then tell me then, what are these... a. Unless it is hindered "INTENTIONALLY", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!) b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy. c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy. d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding. e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis. f. INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception! g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE. h. ONLY the Existence of "Which-Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function. i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions. j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure. I could go on for MONTHS !! Are these in degrees of confidence?? There's one above, see the QM Example. regards
×

Important Information

Our Terms