FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-29-2003, 10:37 AM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Durham, NH USA
Posts: 5,933
Default

Majestyk:
Quote:
It appears you have rejected quantum physics in its entirety. Am I mistaken?

*edit* and some general relativity as well.
When you challenge the conclusions of a theory you challenge the premises upon which the theory is built.

I challenge any theory built upon --

1. the premise of an infinite quantity of m/e;
2. the premise of a finite volume of space;
3. the premise that space = gravitational field;
4. the premise that gravity can curve space;
5. the premise that incompletely-dimensioned geometrical points = physical points.

If SR/GR and QM all suffer because of the challenges to their premises, then that is TS for SR/GR and QM.

eh:
Quote:
Just accept that modern physics, quantum mechanics, geometry, math and cosmology are wrong, and it will save you the trouble of debating a creationist in disguise.

After all, cosmology and QM are hard to imagine, therefore they must be false.
If you challenge my challenges you must challenge and effectively deny the premises upon which my challenges are built.

You have not effectively denied my premises in previous exchanges.

You have now labeled me a creationist in disguise.

Herein is my website:

www.bobkwebsite.com

You might look at my website to determine if or not you can find data which confirm/deny your theory that I am a creationist.
Bob K is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 11:54 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,846
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob K
3. the premise that space = gravitational field;
4. the premise that gravity can curve space;
I have yet to fully grasp general relativity, let alone quantum mechanics but if, my understanding is correct, these two statements do not properly reflect the premises of either.

(3) My understanding is that space is not warped by gravity rather, gravity is the resultant effect of warped space.

(4) again my understanding is that space is inherently curved. It's just the nature of spacetime. The phenomena of gravity happens within this curvature and is not the cause of it.


I'll try to dig up a reference for these.
Majestyk is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 01:56 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 2,846
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Majestyk
I have yet to fully grasp general relativity, let alone quantum mechanics but if, my understanding is correct, these two statements do not properly reflect the premises of either.

(3) My understanding is that space is not warped by gravity rather, gravity is the resultant effect of warped space.

(4) again my understanding is that space is inherently curved. It's just the nature of spacetime. The phenomena of gravity happens within this curvature and is not the cause of it.


I'll try to dig up a reference for these.
Disregard these statements.
Majestyk is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 02:55 PM   #24
eh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 624
Default

They seem accurate enough...
eh is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 02:58 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 719
Default

Wow, Bob, you have perhaps the worst grasp of physics I have ever seen. Couple this with your ability to make completely unjustified statements as if they are axiomatic truths and you get a huge pile of BS. I would actually work to refute the substance of your claims if there actually was some substance there, but basically everything you have said is nothing more than unfounded assumption, not logical deduction. I do urge you to actually go out and study some physics. I think you could benefit a great deal from it.
Lobstrosity is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 03:31 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

By an interesting coincidence, the ratio of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun (one Astronomical Unit, or A.U.) and a light year, is nearly the same as the ratio between an inch and a mile. There are about 63,072 A.U. in a light year, and there are 63,360 inches in a mile. This makes it easy to come up with some figures to help visualize interplanetary and interstellar distances in familiar terms.

For example, on this 1 inch = 1 A.U. scale, the Sun is smaller than this pixel: ><. The earth is a microscopic spec lying one inch away. Jupiter is a slightly larger dust mote 5 1/4 inches from the Sun, Saturn is at 9 1/2 inches and Uranus, Nepture and Pluto lie at about 19, 30 and 39 inches, respectively. The heliopause, which is where solar wind pressure is balanced against interstellar gas pressure, lies at about 10 feet (120 inches) from the Sun, depending on who you ask (it hasn't yet been positively detected). The Voyager 1 spacecraft is at a distance of 67 inches, or about 5 1/2 feet from the Sun, and is expected to cross and detect this boundary sometime in the next 20 years, if it continues to be operable. Astronomers consider this to be the end of the Sun's influence on the surrounding interstellar medium. At this scale, the domain of solar influence would fit in your living room.

On the same scale the nearest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4 1/3 miles away from my miniature inch-scale solar system. Between the 10-foot solar system in the living room, and the nearest star in the 7-11 parking lot down the road, there would be... nothing. Empty space. A prominent summertime star is Arcturus, 36.7 miles from my inch-scale solar system. That's about the distance from downtown Ft. Worth to downtown Dallas, Texas.

At this same scale, the center of the Milky Way galaxy is 25,000 miles away. The entire Milky Way galaxy would easily fit in the space between the Earth and Moon, with room to spare. I'm getting a little esoteric now, but the nearest spiral galaxy, Andromeda, would be about 1/10th the distance from Earth to Mars this August 27th, when the red planet makes its closest approach to earth in almost 60,000 years. The nearest galaxy group outside our own Local Group, would lie at about the Mars-Earth distance, and the Virgo super cluster of galaxies would lie near Jupiter.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 03:39 PM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy
Posts: 12,048
Default

Oh, never mind.
Autonemesis is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 07:50 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Durham, NH USA
Posts: 5,933
Default

Lobstrosity:
Quote:
Wow, Bob, you have perhaps the worst grasp of physics I have ever seen. Couple this with your ability to make completely unjustified statements as if they are axiomatic truths and you get a huge pile of BS. I would actually work to refute the substance of your claims if there actually was some substance there, but basically everything you have said is nothing more than unfounded assumption, not logical deduction. I do urge you to actually go out and study some physics. I think you could benefit a great deal from it.
Wow, Lob, you have a terrible grasp of logic.

You challenge someone’s theory/conclusions by challenging his premises.

Nowhere do I see you challenging my premises.

Nowhere do you prove that ‘everything [I] have said is nothing more than unfounded assumption.’

Actually, if you pay attention to the usage of the English language you should observe that within the arguments I have presented there are verified premises leading to conclusions which are valid because they are derived from the premises and therefore follow the form of a logical argument and true because the premises are verified.

Instead of verbal attacks on what in your opinion is 'a huge pile of BS,' why don’t you challenge my premises and thereby force yourself to do some logical thinking?
Bob K is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 08:04 PM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 2,214
Default

Well, at least this started out as an interesting thread.

Thanks Bob. Thanks a lot.
Abacus is offline  
Old 07-29-2003, 08:17 PM   #30
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bellingham WA
Posts: 219
Default

*ahem*
As a side note, it's interesting that (according to that scale-calculating page) the ratio between a millimeter and a foot is the same as between the diameters of Mercury and the Sun.
Tenpudo is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:06 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.