On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

>>   Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
>>   they
>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
> 
> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> theological topics than believers do.

Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific 
principles.  Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions 
than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in 
one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and 
questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those 
kinds of questions!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> guy that 
> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was 
> proven right

  I don't think that's correct.

  "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."

  "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
this effect is too small to be observed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

> How do 
> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to 
> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?

  Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
anymore.

  Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
observed or even plausibly conjectured.

> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size 
> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time 
> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.

  What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?

> But, we can't 
> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite 
> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how 
> much gravity you throw at it.

  You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> >>   Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
> >>   they
> >> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
> > 
> > Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> > theological topics than believers do.

> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific 
> principles.  Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions 
> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in 
> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and 
> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those 
> kinds of questions!"

  There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible and
the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and which,
basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions as many
creationists with their misconceptions about science.

  On the other hand, there *are* many atheists who do know the Bible better
than most christians do, who do know which arguments against the Bible are
invalid (because they stem from prejudice and misinterpretation of the text
by ignoring its context), and they also know which parts of the Bible (which
many creationists interpret literally) truly don't stand too much scrutiny
in the face of scientific evidence. Of course these are the minority, in
my experience.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:18:05 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> guy that
>> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
>> proven right
> 
>   I don't think that's correct.
> 
>   "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
> 
>   "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
> this effect is too small to be observed."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

http://arxivblog.com/?p=300

Essentially, this is a simulated observation that demonstrates the theory 
of Hawking radiation is sound.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 7/22/2010 9:18 AM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> guy that
>> concluded that black holes *would* give off some radiation, and was
>> proven right
>
>    I don't think that's correct.
>
>    "However, the existence of Hawking radiation has never been observed."
>
>    "Under experimentally achievable conditions for gravitational systems
> this effect is too small to be observed."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
>
Actually, this is only partly correct. There has been no "direct" 
observation of it, but there has been indirect. But, technically, since 
its so damn small, this would be correct. Mind, if you don't have it, 
then you have to come up with something else to explain radiation from a 
block hole, where there shouldn't be any, and that *has* been seen.

>> How do
>> you get denser than that, even if you reduce the particles to
>> sub-particles, like quarks and muons?
>
>    Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
> anymore.
>
>    Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
>
>> But, its still a question to physicists. There has to be a finite size
>> for distance *period*, as with time. If you don't have those, time
>> couldn't pass, and distance could never be crossed.
>
>    What does "finite size for distance, as with time" even mean?
>
>> But, we can't
>> observe the result, to see if that is true, so there *may* be a finite
>> "density", beyond which you can't get any more compact, no matter how
>> much gravity you throw at it.
>
>    You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
>
If its not particles, then what? Energy? Oh, wait, energy is still some 
sort of particle, as near as we can come up with. Mind, it might not be, 
if you go all the way down to String Theory, but that is just pure math, 
it has yet to come up with math that correctly matches the observed 
universe, and at best, *may* describe a near infinite list of "possible" 
universes, of which ours is just one in gazzillions (which makes finding 
the right math to match it, never mind verify that String Theory is 
right, worse odds than winning the lotto).

In any case, no, the problem here is that you have to present a 
plausible thing to "be" there, if you don't have particles, given that 
even breaking up something like an electron gives you... more particles. 
Again, its presupposing what is there, based on what needs to be, for 
the math to come out right. It doesn't prove that the math *is* right, 
in those conditions, or there is some basic limit, just like with 
distance and travel, over time. There is simply the assumption that 
there isn't one.

But, like I said, until he publishes, all we have is the assertion that 
its not happening, combined with the embarrassing fact that certain 
observations are not explained, by other means, without the prior 
Hawking's Radition.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:32:50 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
> 
>> >>   Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think
>> >>   that they
>> >> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>> > 
>> > Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
>> > theological topics than believers do.
> 
>> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
>> principles.  Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
>> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
>> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
>> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask
>> those kinds of questions!"
> 
>   There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible
> and the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and
> which, basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions
> as many creationists with their misconceptions about science.

Oh, sure - those who are *active* atheists, though (as compared to those 
who just "don't care" - which is more agnosticism than atheism IIRC) do 
tend to have studied a lot more than the average practitioner of a 
theistic religion.

>   On the other hand, there *are* many atheists who do know the Bible
>   better
> than most christians do, who do know which arguments against the Bible
> are invalid (because they stem from prejudice and misinterpretation of
> the text by ignoring its context), and they also know which parts of the
> Bible (which many creationists interpret literally) truly don't stand
> too much scrutiny in the face of scientific evidence. Of course these
> are the minority, in my experience.

If you count everyone who's just inactive in a religion as an atheist, 
then you're correct.  When I talk about atheists in this context, though, 
I'm talking about those who are *actively* atheistic - and not the people 
who just haven't been to church in a while or who perhaps have doubts.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
> anymore.

Err, what are they, then?

>   Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a singularity
> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
> observed or even plausibly conjectured.

I would think Pauli exclusion would be a possibility. Or something like the 
quantumness of spacetime. Can you actually fit multiple particles into one 
plank-length of space?

>   You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.

I think first you have to define what you mean by a "singularity", then by a 
"force", given that gravity isn't a force per se.

I think once you wander outside the area where the math actually is known to 
work, you need some actual experimental evidence to base conclusions on. I 
don't know that it's valid to say "that must behave *this* way, because 
otherwise we'd divide by zero" (or "because we divide by zero"). The math 
only summarizes what we know of physics. It doesn't define how physics works.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
    C# - a language whose greatest drawback
    is that its best implementation comes
    from a company that doesn't hate Microsoft.

Post a reply to this message

On 7/21/2010 6:10 PM, John VanSickle wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>> Why do creationists (with which I'm referring to certain specific dogmas
>>> rather than "christians" or "believers" in general) continuously confuse
>>> two completely different and separate fields of science, namely
>>> astronomy
>>> and biology?
>>
>> Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that they
>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>
> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
> theological topics than believers do.
>
> It is certainly true that there are lots of people in both camps who
> believe and know only what their accepted authorities have told them
> about either topic.
>
The funny thing on that is, the average "believer" I know has maybe read 
20% of the Bible, almost **nothing** on the history tied to the time 
periods described in it (with possible exception of texts designed to 
ignore things that don't fit in with the "official" dogma), where as 
most atheists have read more than half of it, or the entire thing, more 
than once, and at least 1-2 books on the history of some of the periods, 
*and* more than a few books on other religions. The other thing is, like 
95% of atheists used to be believers, probably 20% of them where 
Evangelical, before concluding it was all gibberish, and another 2% or 
so where ***actually priests*** at one point in time.

By contrast, with the exception of a few that, when you examine their 
claims, are obviously lying, or didn't understand what they read in the 
first place, or where **already** looking for a different answer, so 
didn't *ever* accept the scientific evidence, there is maybe 1 biologist 
*ever* that has converted from atheist to some form of deism, that I 
know of, and he was medically ill, being pestered by "helpful" 
Evangelicals at the time, and suffering mid-stage dementia.

Hell yes, a lot of atheists have a better idea than the believers what 
their "theology" says...

>> A very typical argument between a (young-earth) creationist and an
>> evolutionist goes like: "Can you give me even one single example of
>> evolution having been observed?" "Yes, there's for example xyz."
>> "That's not evolution."
>>
>> Wait, now creationists define what "evolution" means and are, basically,
>> claiming that evolutionists don't even know what it really means?
>
> Differing definitions of evolution at work. In the broadest sense, it
> refers to any change over time in the variety of life, which is
> observable. Creationists use the term to refer to something more
> specific, such as the gradual change of one form of life into a
> significantly different form (such as the transition from insectivores
> into carnivores).
>
> Regards,
> John
Or, they completely jump the shark, and start babbling about dogs giving 
birth to cats, in one single generation. I.e., miracles being a 
necessity for evolution to work... lol

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 7/22/2010 9:32 AM, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:10:04 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
>>>>    Another curious things is that many creationists seem to think that
>>>>    they
>>>> know what "evolution" is better than evolutionists themselves.
>>>
>>> Which is the flip side of atheists who claim to know more about
>>> theological topics than believers do.
>
>> Well, not really; a fair number of the creationists reject scientific
>> principles.  Atheists tend to know a lot more about theistic religions
>> than those who practice them, IME, because they've often been raised in
>> one and then decided it's pants after years of careful study and
>> questioning - questioning that *often* is answered with "don't ask those
>> kinds of questions!"
>
>    There are certainly tons of atheists (a term which I'm using in a very
> broad sense here) who have all kinds of misconceptions about the Bible and
> the christian dogma, and which are quite easy to prove wrong, and which,
> basically, make themselves as foolish with their misconceptions as many
> creationists with their misconceptions about science.
>
Willing to bet that most of those "misconceptions" are nothing of the 
sort, but rather preconceptions, arising out of their own experience 
with believers, including those they grew up with, who actually 
***did*** think those things where in the Bible. Oh, and then there is 
all the stuff that is correct vis a vie the Bible, if you read it "in 
context", or "literally", or "in terms of the time period and beliefs 
common then", but bare no resemblance **at all** to the cherry picked, 
ultra-liberal (but don't dare say that in some circles), white washed 
version that many modern Christians "think" their Bible has in it, on 
the basis of sermons that, if they are lucky, contain less than 10% of 
the total contents, while the other 90% is quietly classed as, "Not 
relevant to anything I ever preach about", and swept under the nearest 
alter cloth.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 7/22/2010 10:07 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> Matter degenerates under that much gravity. They are not "particles"
>> anymore.
>
> Err, what are they, then?
>
>> Besides, it doesn't really matter what happens to them. You would have
>> to prove that there exists a phenomenon or force in physics which makes
>> matter overcome the gravity and stops it from collapsing into a
>> singularity
>> inside a black hole. I don't think any such phenomenon or force has been
>> observed or even plausibly conjectured.
>
> I would think Pauli exclusion would be a possibility. Or something like
> the quantumness of spacetime. Can you actually fit multiple particles
> into one plank-length of space?
>
>> You would need to explain what stops the matter from collapsing into a
>> singularity. It certainly cannot be a physical force.
>
> I think first you have to define what you mean by a "singularity", then
> by a "force", given that gravity isn't a force per se.
>
> I think once you wander outside the area where the math actually is
> known to work, you need some actual experimental evidence to base
> conclusions on. I don't know that it's valid to say "that must behave
> *this* way, because otherwise we'd divide by zero" (or "because we
> divide by zero"). The math only summarizes what we know of physics. It
> doesn't define how physics works.
>
This is one reason why singularity is a problem. You throw out every 
equation you "do" have about how things work, because, "They don't work 
there.", only.. then you have to ask why, given things like the 
"multiple particles in a Plank Length" issue, which the same math says 
shouldn't happen, even *in* a black hole. If you conclude that, like a 
lot of math, there is a point where it just won't apply, then you only 
have to deal with "one" equation being wrong at that level of mass, not 
***every*** equation in physics, except the one telling you a 
singularity formed. Which seems more absurd, or just less complicated?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message