The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

math says that there isn't even any 'time' outside it

Foot, that's 'cause there just isn't an outside

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

the true outer limits of the universe

Only if you think of All as a Ball. But of course it's not. There's no physical boundary that can be described as a "limit"

0 Replies

@fresco,

We all get to define 'what works' for ourselves, But spectator sports doesn't do it for me.

0 Replies

@Banana Breath,

Quote:

...my answer to that was simply the stuff that slips beyond human understanding of physics, time and space

Exactly, Ban. Eventually however, we'll uncover a clue or two, partly through physics, partly through a wider, less dualistic reasoning, partly maybe even through a branch of religion

...when we begin to realize nothing is entirely anything while everything is partly something else

We're just touching on the edge of it when we question the idea of an "outside"

Forgive unintentional pun

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Since the universe is expanding at less than the speed of light...

Foot, much of the mystery surrounding the speed of light is dissipated by the assumption that we're underestimating it (please don't ask me for refs to the many pertinent threads), Way, way greater than c, though maybe not infinite.....

I've approached the suggestion as an extension of time-at-a-distance; but it might also serve as an example of our dualism. Just as the difference between the athiest and believer, the idea of c being absolute might be mistaken

1 Reply

Let's pause for a moment of levity. I propose that there is no reality beyond the tri-state area (NY, Jersey, Conn.).

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Foot, much of the mystery surrounding the speed of light is dissipated by the assumption that we're underestimating it (please don't ask me for refs to the many pertinent threads), Way, way greater than c, though maybe not infinite.....

Now THAT would be news. There was a recent flurry of academic interest when for the first time a lab measured a TINY increase in the speed of light. Everybody went nuts for awhile until the error in the method was found.

I follow this stuff fairly closely so if C were found to be variable I think I would have heard.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

if C were found to be variable I think I would have heard

Foot it hasn't been "found" variable. I am merely proposing a different way of looking at it to explain such quirky qualities as its apparent constant speed, the pernicious "twin paradox," the apparent slowing of the moving clock, its evident increase in mass, etc etc, all explained to the satisfaction of Intuition by a relative view of light velocity based on a "skewed" view of time-at-a distance

Yes everyone thinks I'm nuts; tho nobody has been able to show me what's wrong with it

http://able2know.org/topic/209488-1

0 Replies

@Banana Breath,

Okay, tell me one and only one thing in accepted inflationary cosmology that's wrong. Tell me yourself. Don't show me a link to someone else talking about it and don't tell me what someone else said. Tell me yourself.

1 Reply

@fresco,

I don't require "the literature," and have not alluded to it. As for decorum, there was not response in kind on your part. I asked you "Whence the languagers?" with no personal reflections, and you lashed out. See how easily hypocrites reationalize their hypocrisy? As for your "support," with friends like you, i certainly need no enemies. I need no support from you on any topic.

You are really confused--if anyone here is senile, i would say it's you.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

So that's a case of courts forbidding the teaching of so-called intelligent design (that one cracks me up, your designer shows marginal intelligence), it's not scientists forbidding that. What you wanted to refer to was the Scopes monkey trial, not Snopes (Snopes exposes BS, they'll be no friends or yours). The Dover case was based on a complete lack of science in intelligent design as it was presented to the court, and therefore not a subject to be taught in science classes.

Court rulings striking down the teaching creationism in sciences classes include McLean versus Arkansas (1981) and Edwards versus Aguillard (1987)--which is a good deal more recent than the Tennessee case in 1925. The courts have moved well beyond your apparent understanding of the issues.

1 Reply

@Banana Breath,

You're hilarious . . . you claim these are "forbidden questions," and then provide evidence that they are not forbidden. As i've already pointed out this discussion is interesting, but absent evidence, it's not science. If this idle speculation doesn't get mentioned, it's because it's not science, and not because it's forbidden. You were the one who dragged god into this, not i. I thinks it's hilarious also to you calling me potty-mouthed, considering your petulant, puerile remarks as soon as your motives were challenged.

You old charm school drop-out . . .

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Awww, let's all cry for the poor narcissist, Setanta. Narcissim personality traits:

Quote:

Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)
Vulnerability to shame rather than guilt
Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)
Using other people without considering the cost of doing so
Pretending to be more important than they really are
Bragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievements
Claiming to be an "expert" at many things
Inability to view the world from the perspective of other people
Denial of remorse and gratitude
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism

If you were able to "read for meaning" and digest what has already been posted, you'd realize that the existence "forbidden topics" such as Falun Gong in China is not disproven by the fact that a few dissenters do indeed raise the topic. If there weren't any dissenters raising the topic, there wouldn't be any reason to forbid the topic. What a magnificently tiny intellect you possess.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Court rulings striking down the teaching creationism in sciences classes include McLean versus Arkansas (1981) and Edwards versus Aguillard (1987)--which is a good deal more recent than the Tennessee case in 1925. The courts have moved well beyond your apparent understanding of the issues.

Now that's funny. You attempt to refute my claim by providing more evidence proving it and the fallicy of you original claim.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Quote:

Okay, tell me one and only one thing in accepted inflationary cosmology that's wrong. Tell me yourself. Don't show me a link to someone else talking about it and don't tell me what someone else said. Tell me yourself.

Brandon, I think you should review the original question at hand here, dealing with "The forbidden questions of comsology and physics." This is not a "stump the expert" forum, nor have I claimed to be the resident expert. Further, in case you never went to college, citing references is part and parcel of good scholarship; one should always provide citations clarifying the background and derivations of thoughts, ideas, opinions and the like in an academic discussion or debate. As stated by MIT's libraries:

Quote:

"It's important to cite sources you used in your research for several reasons:
-To show your reader you've done proper research by listing sources you used to get your information
-To be a responsible scholar by giving credit to other researchers and acknowledging their ideas
-To avoid plagiarism by quoting words and ideas used by other authors
-To allow your reader to track down the sources you used by citing them accurately in your paper by way of footnotes, a bibliography or reference list
http://libguides.mit.edu/citing"

Give it a try sometime.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

Times change. There are modern (2005) court cases where the teaching of Intelligent Design has been forbidden. I doubt you will find any more Snopes Monkey Trials forbidding the teaching of Evolution.

This is rich.
If all the court cases were lined up end to end, I still dont think youd get the meaning of evidence , not to mention the "preponderance of evidence"

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

My guess is that 99+ % of those who condemn ID as "religion" have no indepth knowledge of cellular biology

Nor do 99% of those who preach that fallcy have a knowledge of statistics.

ID has NEVER BEGUN WITH EVIDENCE> IT HAS ALWAYS BEGUN WITH A PROPOSITION THAT "Life is too complex to have arisen without an intelligence behind it"

SO FAR, no evidence has ever been pesented to underpin ID.

Your statement re the "Bonding" of The 5 nucleotides are not done in non biological arenas. That is true, but do you undesrtnd how this is done (nd speculate on the why)??

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

This is rich.
If all the court cases were lined up end to end, I still dont think youd get the meaning of evidence , not to mention the "preponderance of evidence"

You and I have discussed the evidence before, but the subject at hand is not whether the evidence was good or not but the fact of the verdicts.

Currently, ID (for example) is banned from school discussion, Evolution is not.

The prejudice is further exacerbated by the fact that there are approved college courses on "Paranormal Activity", as long as the dreaded "G" word is not mentioned. The funny thing is, ID can be discussed without that word too.

But thanks for not arguing the case based on my typos.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

My guess is that 99+ % of those who condemn ID as "religion" have no indepth knowledge of cellular biology

Nor do 99% of those who preach that fallacy have a knowledge of statistics.

ID has NEVER BEGUN WITH EVIDENCE> IT HAS ALWAYS BEGUN WITH A PROPOSITION THAT "Life is too complex to have arisen without an intelligence behind it" The several courts have carefully reviewed the evidence that supports statement and its precursor (That being "SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM") and have found it to be religiously based and therefore not science (in the sense that the science does not break the "Establishment Clause" rule of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution). If you feel your arguments re more compelling than those that underlie the Majority opinions of the US SUPREME COURT (2 such rulings) and the region 4 and region 3 district courts similR "FINDINGS" tht underlie their rulings--then you should try to communicate them.

SO FAR, no evidence has ever been pesented to underpin CREATIONISM or its child, ID.

Your statement re the "Bonding" of The 5 nucleotides" are not done in non biological arenas" > I agree, That is a true statement, but do you undesrtnd how this is done (nd speculate on the why)??

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Your statement re the "Bonding" of The 5 nucleotides are not done in non biological arenas. That is true, but do you undesrtnd how this is done (nd speculate on the why)??

If I understand your question correctly, one of the central factors in the case for ID is that there is no known 'how' as to the arrangement of nucleotides in DNA. By that I mean the specific order of them, not the bonds between each individual pair which are easily explained by molecular chemistry.

I freely confess that I came to the study of cellular biology already convinced of a creator but when studying and discussing cosmology and the origin of life, I make every attempt to separate my theology from the science. I have come to see them as compatible and can't help bouncing them off each other occasionally.

0 Replies

The forbidden questions of comsology and physics

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know