Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next
Author Message
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320298 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 2:58:05 UTC

The pattern give us something tangible. Order.

Chaos and order do live side by side, but order always comes out on top.

Chaos and Order cannot live without each other, the yin for the yang. But, unlike yin and yang one always tops the other. The coin has not been made because the coin cannot be made, we are not the Maker, we are the made. There is no equal of one and the other. One always comes out on top. Chaos is a byproduct of Order.

We can only imitate what is in nature and we do so incompletely because we ourselves are a product of Chaos and Order. The Designer is Order without Chaos. Since we have Chaos within us we cannot make Order. The best we can do is reflect nature with it's Chaos. We can do no better then nature and nature is with Chaos. Ergo the coin cannot be made. Ergo the math is less then perfect. Ergo we are the product of Chaos with Order being on top.

An example of this taken from the Bible would be the Fallen Nature of man. We are without harmony, we are with Natural Sin.

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12805
Credit: 7,380,211
RAC: 18,207
United States
Message 1320311 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 4:28:15 UTC - in response to Message 1320298.

Chaos and order.

Is an ionized hydrogen atom the most chaotic state in the universe or the most ordered state in the universe? Where does a regular hydrogen atom fall, more or less chaos? Where does a hydrogen molecule fall, more or less chaos?

Until you answer this you can't begin to understand if DNA is a more or less chaotic state.

____________

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8704
Credit: 25,179,300
RAC: 29,038
United Kingdom
Message 1320313 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 4:44:06 UTC

Chaos and Order, isn't that a book in the Gap series?

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320317 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 4:50:44 UTC

Excuse me--Original Sin. My bad. ;-)

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320318 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 4:53:58 UTC

Fill the gap with something tangible. You cannot, and will not.

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8555
Credit: 59,991,411
RAC: 92,837
United Kingdom
Message 1320471 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 17:35:13 UTC

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320535 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 20:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 1320471.

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

Enlighten me.

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8555
Credit: 59,991,411
RAC: 92,837
United Kingdom
Message 1320569 - Posted: 27 Dec 2012, 23:02:37 UTC

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.
First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...
Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")

____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2601
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 23
United States
Message 1320622 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 2:21:20 UTC - in response to Message 1320016.

That would be Design, not chance.


It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320627 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 2:52:15 UTC - in response to Message 1320569.
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 3:00:28 UTC

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.


I have time...
First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...


So far...
Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Why non-symetric? In nature nothing is a perfect anything. So, if Chaos is non-symetric in nature so would be Order. But Order here is also not perfect. I don't follow you all the way here. I understand that the reflections, or inversions will not line up but even with that why do you think they cannot be predicted? I understand that everything in nature is highly chaotic but in the end we have something not nothing so in the end we have Order as Designed, not random. I believe that there are a few things in nature that are a perfect something, a singularity perfectly round. And the reflections of it on the inside of the event horizon for what it has taken in are a perfect example of what it has taken in. Information is never lost. Perfect.

Is there nothing absolute with you? Is there nothing with you that is absolutely wrong? Or, is there something you call absolutely the truth?

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")


The answer is, yes, to their system of non-belief.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320628 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 2:53:48 UTC - in response to Message 1320622.

That would be Design, not chance.


It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,513,782
RAC: 1,703
United States
Message 1320637 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 3:38:14 UTC - in response to Message 1320628.

That would be Design, not chance.


It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

Either you would be convinced by what many of us have said or have real "weaponry" to use in your debates.

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1320650 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 5:13:29 UTC
Last modified: 28 Dec 2012, 5:13:59 UTC

My apologies, I should have said perfect sphere while talking about a singularity.

Then again I'm a imperfect being.

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,513,782
RAC: 1,703
United States
Message 1320679 - Posted: 28 Dec 2012, 6:35:25 UTC - in response to Message 1320661.

We should remember that we are looking for patterns in nature and their possible numerical representation. An example of such patterns are the cubes in a beehive where honey is being stored.

As mentioned, 33183434030525011217 equals 73*65657*6923368254097

Once again, please take a number like 33183434030525011219 for example.

This number is some 2 higher than the previous one.

This number is also composite: 7*40543*8610139*13579921

Also, each of the four composite numbers are again all prime numbers, meaning that 40543 is only divisble by 1 and itself (40543).

If you try multiply 33183434030525011217 with 33183434030525011219 and then add 1, you end up with an even number.

1101140294058205391135301533859025843524 equals 2*2*3*3*14633*14633*377952049369291*377952049369291

These numbers are also prime numbers on their own.

Oh, what strange. In fact I double-checked this number. What is the next prime number, by the way?

This number can therefore not be even, but it should be clear that such factorization could return the individual patterns or structures where the complete structure is based on these individual elements.

In the same way an E.T. could equally well be Battlestar Galactica or the Death Star / Darth Vader's command ship as it could be the shining blue-white "Star Queen Nebula" M16, which is located in the constellation of Serpens Cauda.


1101140294058205391135301533859025843829

Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1321950 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 5:11:46 UTC

Are particles tangible?

rob smithProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8555
Credit: 59,991,411
RAC: 92,837
United Kingdom
Message 1322131 - Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 11:37:30 UTC

That depends on your measuring technique.
A particle of wood buried in one's hand is intangible to normal x-ray techniques, but is tangible to the sufferer and a trained observer. In the same sort of way an atom is intangible when you use an optical microscope, but use the correct electron microscope it can be observed. Electrons are less tangible because of their relatively high velocities. By the time we get to the Bosons the problems get bigger, because the velocities get higher, while the dimensions (linear for now) get smaller, but given the right equipment, and the right measuring conditions you can visualise them (think back to that wood particle in your hand - given the right x-ray equipment it can be observed).
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32142
Credit: 13,920,945
RAC: 24,979
United Kingdom
Message 1323617 - Posted: 2 Jan 2013, 15:08:01 UTC

I still predict that particles and things can travel at faster than light speed, without breaking any of Einstein's theories. I don't know how, I'm not a scientist, but I am absolutely sure it is possible.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Prejudice v. Science: When Theory Trumps Hard Evidence

Copyright © 2014 University of California