Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2013, 16:28   #101
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And, really, is that an extrapolation, or a direct experiment that shows a cause and effect relationship.

When you make an assumption about an experiment done on the micro scale, and apply it to an unreproducible macro scale, it requires imagination.

Imagination isn't as exact as some would hope.
Do you know what falsification is? Do you understand that you can't really prove anything, you can only disprove? (Excluding mathematics and logic that do not necessarily have to map to an actual reality)

Do you understand that if they do their calculations and can say 'Ok, if we can look and see Y, that will prove BBT cannot be true, if we look and see X, that is consistent with BBT', that is *not* extrapolation?

There's a model in quantum physics called the 'Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model'. That model makes testable predictions - one of which is the mass of the Higgs boson, if such a boson existed (as it was not actually known for a while if it did - just that quantum physics predicted it should). Experimentation indicated a lower limit of the Higgs mass that was higher than the upper limit the MSSV predicted. When the Higgs boson was found, it had a mass of 125GeV. This is also above the Higgs mass the MSSV model predicted.

So, question for you: Was that all extrapolation, or a falsifiable posit that was actually falsified? Given the data that the higgs boson has a mass of around 125GeV, is it reasonable to exclude the models that do not have lower limits below 125GeV and upper limits above 125GeV, while keeping those that do in the running, or not?

AFAIK *no* potential model predicted CMB other than the BBT. That being the case, is it reasonable to say 'Ok, we'll go with that until we either find a better model or can falsify it', or isn't it?

Prove the sun will come up tomorrow, without using any extrapolation.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 16:57..
void * is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 16:28   #102
Cream Soda Kid
Senior Member
 
Cream Soda Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,252
Evidence of God will be manifested at the end of your life. I know He exists, He always has, He always will.

You can believe or not, belief is a choice and choices have consequences.
Cream Soda Kid is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 16:34   #103
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Do you know what falsification is? Do you understand that if they do their calculations and can say 'Ok, if we can look and see Y, that will prove BBT cannot be true, if we look and see X, that is consistent with BBT', that is *not* extrapolation?
Swish and a miss on the whole scientific argument......

Real science neither proves whether a deity has existed or not.


There will always be the faithful that argue differently. You're one of them... Get used to it.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 16:45   #104
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
See, you moved the goal posts again. I was responding to your point about Big Bang and/or/vs Big Chill and whether one or both were backed by evidence and you responded as if I was claiming evidence that no deity existed. That's called a strawman. Typical CavDoc style, if you don't like the question posed to you then respond to one you prefer and pretend as if it were the original.
Geko, the goal posts have always been right there. Neither of us can kick a definitive field goal through the goal posts.

Only one of us claims to have knowledge on whether a deity had or had not existed. Only one of us can really claim to be without a firm belief of whether a deity has or has not existed.

Be honest, just this one time. Did you post the following:



You are what you are, even if you deny it. Strawman? Really? Pot calling the kettle black again? If you can't see it, it's even more funny than it is now.

Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 17:00   #105
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Real science neither proves whether a deity has existed or not.
We are not currently discussing whether a deity has existed or not. We are discussing why you seem to think that the BBT is any different than any other actual scientific theory ever. There is also nothing in the BBT that says 'there can't have been a deity ever', so if you are attempting to claim such, it's a straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Georges Lemaître
Thermodynamical principles from the point of view of quantum theory may be stated as follows : (1) Energy of constant total amount is distributed in discrete quanta. (2) The number of distinct quanta is ever increasing. If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum.
That quote is from a letter to Nature by Georges Lemaître, and it is basically the initial proposal of the BBT. Note that it does not claim that this proved there was no deity, and also note that Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest.

So again, I will ask,

Given that the observational and experimental data we have is consistent with BBT, given that there are falsifiable predictions BBT has made that not only have *not* been falsified but were predicted before the measurements could even be made, but were later actually made and found to be consistent with BBT, and given that the theory does not in fact claim there is no deity, why do you have a problem with people provisionally accepting BBT as true if they are explicitly willing to throw it out and adopt a newer, better model should one be found?

If your answer is simply 'but they're extrapolating and using imagination', please prove the sun will come up tomorrow without using extrapolation or imagination.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 17:17..
void * is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 17:24   #106
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
We are not currently discussing whether a deity has existed or not.

...
...
...
So, you missed the entire thread topic yet again.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 17:33   #107
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
So, you missed the entire thread topic yet again.
The current sub-thread is not about the BBT proving or disproving a deity. It's about why you refuse to treat it like any other scientific theory. If you disagree, please quote where I've stated in this thread that BBT disproves a deity. You are simply making a claim I've never made as though it somehow invalidates everything I've stated.

Unless, of course, you're going to claim that you think it somehow states that there can't be a deity, and that therefore you think it is not scientific. If that's the case, I will just again point out that this claim is erroneous, the theory itself makes no claim about deities, and that the BBT was initially proposed by a Catholic priest.

If that's not what you're claiming, then please explain why you feel the BBT cannot be provisionally accepted, and rejected in the future if necessary, like any other scientific theory has - including the ones like Newtonian physics that ran into data from observation and experimentation indicating they could not actually be true, and were actually rejected when a better, more explanatory theory that was supported by evidence and experimentation (just like Newtonian physics actually was, up until we found data that contradicted it) came along.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-05-2013 at 17:37..
void * is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 17:40   #108
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,116


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Only one of us claims to have knowledge on whether a deity had or had not existed. Only one of us can really claim to be without a firm belief of whether a deity has or has not existed.

Be honest, just this one time. Did you post the following:
Of course that is my quote. I have never denied it, but what does that have to do with the Big Bang vs. Big Chill? You keep trying to redirect the conversation away from your error, but everyone can see exactly what you are up to. I never made any claim about evidence for or against god in post #93 in this thread. It wasn't even what I was getting at. Quoting me on another topic that is completely unrelated is moot.

Hooligan and Void called you on this as well, but I don't expect you to acknowledge your error. This is why you are intellectually dishonest. At least I own what I say, your goal is to obfuscate the conversation to the point that no one can keep track of who said what. You tell Hooligan to google "Geko45 glocktalk inductive". Why? Again, what does my position on that matter have anything to do with my post #93 in this thread?

You claimed that modern Big Bang theory is mostly speculation. I've called you out on that unsupported assertion. Set aside the whole "evidence for or against god" argument for a moment and back up your own statement. What basis do you have to suggest that physicists and cosmologists are mostly speculating?

Quote:
The thing is that a whole lot of people are speculating, sometimes with very little actual data, and a lot of extrapolated (imagined) data from present observations. A lot of people, including scientists, seem to be unwilling to admit the things they don't know.
Specifically, back up this statement. It is my position that you can't and that you are in fact speculating much more than the scientists you accuse. Have you read the scientific journals on these matters? Have you investigated and read peer reviewed papers or are you spitballing based on what you hear in popular media?
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-05-2013 at 21:40..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-05-2013, 19:19   #109
chickenwing
Senior Member
 
chickenwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Of course that is my quote. I have never denied it, but what does that have to do with the Big Bang vs. Big Chill? You keep trying to redirect the conversation away from your error, but everyone can see exactly what you are up to. I never made any claim about evidence for or against god in post #93 in this thread. It wasn't even what I was getting at. Quoting me on another topic that is completely unrelated is moot.

Hooligan and Void called you on this as well, but I don't expect you to acknowledge your error. This is why you are intellectually dishonest. At least I own what I say, your goal is to obfuscate the conversation to the point that no one can keep track of who said what. You tell Hooligan to google "Geko45 glocktalk inductive". Why? Again, what does my position on that matter have anything to do with my post #93 in this thread?

You claimed that modern Big Bang theory is mostly speculation. I've called you out on that unsupported assertion. Set aside the whole "evidence for/or against god" argument for a moment and back up your own statement. What basis do you have to suggest that physicists and cosmologists are mostly speculating?

Specifically, back up this statement. It is my position that you can't and that you are in fact speculating much more than the scientists you accuse. Have you read the scientific journals on these matters? Have you investigated and read peer reviewed papers or are you spitballing based on what you hear in popular media?
Well done sir. Clear and concise. That is how you completely destroy a troll.



Careful though, it might get butt hurt and go whine to a mod.
__________________
Quote:
...don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men!..
Charlie Chaplin -

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
chickenwing is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 02:08   #110
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You have stated a simple truth, whether it not our imagined explanations for some things are correct or not have no bearing on the universe except in our own perception. It is what it is, like it or not. Math done correctly won't lie, but it can mislead when the results are not correctly analyzed.
You really are messed up in the head. I can't even tell if you are trying to agree or not. The imagined explanations you reference are language models. Language not science. The science is based on math and is in no way imagined. It doesn't matter what language one uses bang or chill. It doesn't even matter if there is/are/were deity/s or not, which science in no way addresses.

Our current understanding of science since the quantum revolution is correct and every experiment we have ever done since then proves it.

You are obsessed with whether one believes in gods or not. It doesn't make a difference in science one way or the other. It is what it is, like it or not.
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:49   #111
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
The current sub-thread is not about the BBT proving or disproving a deity. It's about why you refuse to treat it like any other scientific theory. If you disagree, please quote where I've stated in this thread that BBT disproves a deity. You are simply making a claim I've never made as though it somehow invalidates everything I've stated.

Unless, of course, you're going to claim that you think it somehow states that there can't be a deity, and that therefore you think it is not scientific. If that's the case, I will just again point out that this claim is erroneous, the theory itself makes no claim about deities, and that the BBT was initially proposed by a Catholic priest.

If that's not what you're claiming, then please explain why you feel the BBT cannot be provisionally accepted, and rejected in the future if necessary, like any other scientific theory has - including the ones like Newtonian physics that ran into data from observation and experimentation indicating they could not actually be true, and were actually rejected when a better, more explanatory theory that was supported by evidence and experimentation (just like Newtonian physics actually was, up until we found data that contradicted it) came along.
The BBT is a scientific theory. It's a pretty good guess at what is causing the witnessed expansion. It may or may not change as more information comes along. That's how science works sometimes. The most reasonable guess that fits. Unlike gravity which is present and can be observed today, we can't actually watch the Big Bang occur again in full scale.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 05:54   #112
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Of course that is my quote. I have never denied it, but what does that have to do with the Big Bang vs. Big Chill? You keep trying to redirect the conversation away from your error, but everyone can see exactly what you are up to. I never made any claim about evidence for or against god in post #93 in this thread. It wasn't even what I was getting at. Quoting me on another topic that is completely unrelated is moot.

Hooligan and Void called you on this as well, but I don't expect you to acknowledge your error. This is why you are intellectually dishonest. At least I own what I say, your goal is to obfuscate the conversation to the point that no one can keep track of who said what. You tell Hooligan to google "Geko45 glocktalk inductive". Why? Again, what does my position on that matter have anything to do with my post #93 in this thread?

You claimed that modern Big Bang theory is mostly speculation. I've called you out on that unsupported assertion. Set aside the whole "evidence for or against god" argument for a moment and back up your own statement. What basis do you have to suggest that physicists and cosmologists are mostly speculating?



Specifically, back up this statement. It is my position that you can't and that you are in fact speculating much more than the scientists you accuse. Have you read the scientific journals on these matters? Have you investigated and read peer reviewed papers or are you spitballing based on what you hear in popular media?
Not mostly speculation, read post 88 again, a lot of people speculating is different than a theory being mostly speculation. It requires speculation to describe an event in detail that occurred billions of years prior to the existance of modern man. There are some things you can't go back and see.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-06-2013 at 06:08..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 06:12   #113
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
You really are messed up in the head. I can't even tell if you are trying to agree or not. The imagined explanations you reference are language models. Language not science. The science is based on math and is in no way imagined. It doesn't matter what language one uses bang or chill. It doesn't even matter if there is/are/were deity/s or not, which science in no way addresses.

Our current understanding of science since the quantum revolution is correct and every experiment we have ever done since then proves it.

You are obsessed with whether one believes in gods or not. It doesn't make a difference in science one way or the other. It is what it is, like it or not.
I was agreeing with you on one of your points. But you saw fit to extrapolate a bit on your own and lose your manners again. We were talking about math, and humans perception of reality.

Try to be a little more adult, it'll help.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 06:14   #114
Cavalry Doc
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 42,688


Quote:
Originally Posted by chickenwing View Post
Well done sir. Clear and concise. That is how you completely destroy a troll.



Careful though, it might get butt hurt and go whine to a mod.
Actually, what he did was sidestep acknowledgment of his bias and incorrectly state my position, again.

BBT is just an example where some speculation and extrapolation are required to explain the event in detail.
Which is why it is still being questioned by scientists.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 08:02   #115
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,116




Too funny! It's almost as if time is not linear in CavDoc's world and effect can precede cause. I've known that causality is not absolute in the quantum world for some time, but Doc here may be the first classical example that invalidates the First Cause argument.

You can squirm as much as you like Doc, but it seems that the consensus is in. You are just making stuff up now to save face and the more absurd the lengths to which you will go, the more foolish you sound. At any rate, thanks for the entertainment.

__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 08:50   #116
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
The BBT is a scientific theory. It's a pretty good guess at what is causing the witnessed expansion. It may or may not change as more information comes along. That's how science works sometimes. The most reasonable guess that fits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
BBT is just an example where some speculation and extrapolation are required to explain the event in detail.
Which is why it is still being questioned by scientists.
You're contradicting yourself.

Either it's a scientific theory, with confirming data from observation and experimentation, which is being provisionally accepted (with good reason) until data falsifying it is found or a better more explanatory theory is likewise backed by confirming data - or it's 'just an example where some speculation and extrapolation are required'.

You can't have it both ways. "Theory" in science means backed up by data to the point of being accepted. It does not mean 'just a guess' or 'just an example'.

And as others have noted, people *notice* when you try to pull a fast one like that.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-06-2013 at 09:01..
void * is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:27   #117
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 15,116


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
You can't have it both ways. "Theory" in science means backed up by data to the point of being accepted. It does not mean 'just a guess' or 'just an example'.
Yes, it would appear that he is rehashing the "just a theory" argument in an attempt to imply that proper scientific rigor is not being applied. No data or hard evidence will be forthcoming as CavDoc never posts anything to which he might actually be held accountable. Speculation, aspersion, obfuscation and misdirection are his preferred tools.

Funny how he continually employs theistic arguments and tactics though he claims agnosticism, isn't it?
__________________
Peace is our profession, war is just a hobby...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Last edited by Geko45; 02-06-2013 at 10:34..
Geko45 is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:36   #118
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Not mostly speculation, read post 88 again, a lot of people speculating is different than a theory being mostly speculation. It requires speculation to describe an event in detail that occurred billions of years prior to the existance of modern man. There are some things you can't go back and see.
You are aware that what is being explained is what the math actually illustrates right? It isn't just this imaginative guess. It is an explanation of calculations. Have you found a flaw in any of the math or are you just talking out of your rear?
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:42   #119
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Yes, it would appear that he is rehashing the "just a theory" argument in an attempt to imply that proper scientific rigor is not being applied. No data or hard evidence will be forthcoming as CavDoc never posts anything to which he might actually be held accountable. Speculation, aspersion, obfuscation and misdirection are his preferred tools.

Funny how he continually employs theistic arguments and tactics though he claims agnosticism, isn't it?
I'm shocked sometimes by how little science people in the medical field actually know. Many of the MDs I know understand their job to a T... but they couldn't tell you the first thing about other sciences. As you could imagine many PAs and Nurses are even worse. I refuse to consult with a doctor as a PCP if they're religious. It just illustrates a disconnect in logic.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-06-2013 at 10:43..
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-06-2013, 10:49   #120
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Be honest, just this one time. Did you post the following:

"religion is a scourge on the human race that must be eliminated if we are ever to be truly free."


You are what you are, even if you deny it.
What does that have to do with the BBT? Why can you never have an honest conversation with people? Why do you have to constantly try and drag up other threads that have nothing to do with anything? I really do feel like you have a collection of files on all of us at your house with links a quotes like some kind of creepy internet stalker. That says a lot about how damaged you are as a person.

Last edited by Glock36shooter; 02-06-2013 at 10:49..
Glock36shooter is offline  

 
  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:18.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 822
234 Members
588 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31