black holes may be evolving


Dexter Sinister
#31
You think like a Jesuit. That's not a compliment, it's a characterization of your casuistry and sophistry. I'd wager you understand no more of Darwinism and its implications than you do of QM and GR, but you can sure produce what sounds like a sophisticated and knowledgeable line of patter. Except that you're quite wrong.
 
gerryh
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

don't get me going on Darwin. .



and what about Darwin?
 
L Gilbert
#33
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

From Randi'sRentaSkeptic.org, give me a break! Still it's interesting reading. I don't often read fiction anymore but it might out me to sleep.

Einstein Was Wrong | Libertarian News

When I clicked on the link, I saw a message saying "<link> "Oops! Google Chrome could not find fascistsoup.com" but I did manage to squeeze the Libertarian News article out anyway.


Quote:

This paper is being continually updated with revisions and new findings.

In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.
- When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions

When I clicked on the link, I saw a message saying "<link> does not correspond to any file that is currently available on www-personal.umich.edu. Please double-check the URL or try the search box below."

Quote:

Introduction

It is often claimed that Einstein’s theories of relativity have withstood every test thrown at them. This article attempts to challenge that claim by presenting a list of predictive failures, falsifying observations, and alternative explanations that better agree with the general rule of Occam’s razor. In science, it is generally accepted that the theory with the least amount of hypothetical postulates is superior to one with more. It was primarily on this basis that Einstein’s version of relativity won out over Lorentz’s, as Einstein was able to demonstrate a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. However, as time has progressed, the amount of hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories has grown exponentially.

Ah, Michael Suede himself seems to take a few things for granted and also makes a fair whack of assumptions when he accuses Einstein of the same things.
As Einstein himself warned, GR and SR do not describe everything in all circumstances. So detractors tend to forget that warning and keep coming up with special circumstances to "prove" the theories wrong.

And then: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science

Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

You managed to totally miss the sense of my post LG. My problem is with the method and reliability of technological innovation.. as opposed to a cult of pseudo theology (masquerading as mathematical 'theory') that has hijacked 'science'.. in academia anyway.

QM deals with the traits of the smallest parts of the universe. Without anything to describe these traits, people who design and construct the parts of computers wouldn't have a clue where to start. The math involved in QM: Mathematics Basic for Quantum Mechanics = "pseudo theology"? Like I said, comical.

heheh http://www.physics.ucla.edu/~ianb/history/

And looking down your nose at Darwinism is equally comical. Darwin wasn't correct about everything but the underlying theory of evolution is a lot better and describes in detail a lot more than your idiotic creationism.
Last edited by L Gilbert; May 19th, 2013 at 02:05 PM..
 
coldstream
#34
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

You think like a Jesuit. (That's not a compliment, it's a characterization of your casuistry and sophistry.) .

I'll take it as a compliment anyway.
 
Dexter Sinister
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

and what about Darwin?

You can find his mistaken understanding of it expressed in a thread from about a year ago in the American politics forum, about Tennessee enacting a law permitting equal time in the classroom for creationist views. If you're really interested... I'd post the link, but this crummy Chrome version on Android makes that somewhat less than easy.

Or wait a couple of hours, I should be back at my desktop with a browser that works the way I want it to.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; May 19th, 2013 at 07:12 PM..
 
coldstream
#36
Good grief.. i can't remember that.. what are you Dexter.. a member of some sinister surveillance agency.. with files on people of suspect political leanings (against political correctness).

As for Darwinism.. on top of the previous comments i made on being a use of synthetic logic, based on selected evidence.. and within a completely closed philosophical system.. look at what its 'fruits' have been . It could be linked to the whole experiment of eugenics and fascism. It could further be argued that it is the intellectual model for both Communism.. in Marx's Capital.. and Free Market Capitalism.. all of which espouse forms of survival of the fittest.. and historical determinism. And all have been social and economic disasters. What technologies have been developed from it.. none.. just political movements.

In could be argued that radical environmentalism and depopulation have their roots in Darwinism, and its view of man as just another species, without divine destiny and now one in conflict with the best interests of the planet. GT, QM, superstrings.. and AGW and other futile and contrived pseudo scienfic theories.. have all borrowed from its methodology. It is certainly at the centre of the secular humanism that has imposed a culture of deep pessimism and spiritual lethargy on the West. There were no doubt, other players in the development of all those.. but Darwin was one of of its intellectual fathers..
Last edited by coldstream; May 19th, 2013 at 08:01 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#37
Evolution is about biology. More specifically it's a scientifically very good and very useful explanation for the observed complexity and diversity of life. That's *all* it is. It has no moral or ethical content, and people who find in it justification, or blame, for things like eugenics, fascism, communism, capitalism, atheism, whatever, just demonstrate their failure to understand and apply it correctly. I can certainly see how it might be a little corrosive to religious belief, it doesn't seem to leave the deity with much to do, but that's no bad thing in my view.
Last edited by Dexter Sinister; May 19th, 2013 at 08:36 PM..
 
coldstream
+1
#38
That's not true, evolution is a philosophy. It has NO resemblance to an authentic science. It posits a working theory in complete contravention to the observable state of the world in just that.. its diversity. The natural order is one of constant complexification and adaption. The model Darwin provides is of selective elimination and conformity.

If his theory was right the world should be getting ever LESS diverse as dominant species wiped out the less so, and an ultimate state of equilibrium imposed a state of evolutionary inertia. When i said it was a closed system.. i meant it has no explanation.. or even speculation.. as to ultimate origins or ends of this process. It then simply becomes a circular and reductive logic... of little utility.... except in validating political causes.
Last edited by coldstream; May 19th, 2013 at 09:03 PM..
 
Dexter Sinister
#39
I guess there's no need now to post the link I mentioned to gerryh, you've demonstrated quite clearly here the same misapprehensions you did a year ago. Obviously the corrections you got then made no impact on you. And no, I'm not a member of any sinister surveillance agency, I just have a retentive memory on issues that interest me and I know how to use a search engine.
 
darkbeaver
#40
Earths cataclysmic dynamic builds everything, as we will eventually find out , again. Darwins "gradualist evolution" is merely an imposition forced on the academic world by the Bankers.
 
gore0bsessed
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

you would be hard pressed to ascribe ONE useful technological development that has been produced... after the Second World War.. to Quantum Mechanics, Superstrings, Cosmological Speculation

.

...YET
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
 
darkbeaver
#42
The Douglas Adams’ “Infinite Improbability generator” type of argument was called upon to produce this ‘vacuum energy.’ The language defining vacuum energy is revealing: “Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space). The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle.” You may notice the absurdity of the concept, given that the vacuum contains no matter, ‘background’ or otherwise, yet it is supposed to contain energy. Adams was parodying Heisenberg’s ‘uncertainty principle’ of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is merely a probabilistic description of what happens at the scale of subatomic particles without any real physical understanding of cause and effect. Heisenberg was uncertain because he didn’t know what he was talking about. However, he was truthful when he wrote, “we still lack some essential feature in our image of the structure of matter.” The concept of ‘virtual particles’ winking in and out of existence defies the aforementioned first principle of physics, “Thou shalt not magically materialize nor dematerialize matter.” Calling that matter ‘virtual’ merely underscores its non-reality.
A Nobel Prize for the Dark Side | thunderbolts.info
 
L Gilbert
#43
Impressive display of ignorance, DB and CS.
CS can't grasp the theory of evolution and DB can't grasp what vacuum means.
 
Dexter Sinister
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

In could be argued that radical environmentalism and depopulation have their roots in Darwinism, and its view of man as just another species...It is certainly at the centre of the secular humanism...but Darwin was one of of its intellectual fathers..

Yes, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong. You must read nothing but Catholic apologists, you view everything through the lens of Catholic dogma. There are other lenses, you should try one. Man IS just another species in most ways, though in some ways certainly a unique one so far in the history of life on earth. You can't, however, lay secular humanism at Darwin's door. You can find some of its ideas among the pre-Socratic Greeks, but the contemporary version of it has its roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, two events the RCC has never really come to terms with, prior to 1800, several generations before Darwin's seminal works were published.
 
coldstream
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Yes, you could argue that, but you'd be wrong. You must read nothing but Catholic apologists, you view everything through the lens of Catholic dogma. There are other lenses, you should try one. Man IS just another species in most ways, though in some ways certainly a unique one so far in the history of life on earth. You can't, however, lay secular humanism at Darwin's door. You can find some of its ideas among the pre-Socratic Greeks, but the contemporary version of it has its roots in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, two events the RCC has never really come to terms with, prior to 1800, several generations before Darwin's seminal works were published.


No, i've read other philosophers. Most of the ancient Pre-Socratics (who first imposed a rational process on mystical speculation) and Socratic (in its method of dialectical inquiry) have been incorporated in some way into Catholic Theology ( through the lens, the reality and revelation of Christ, of course).. most notably in the great syntheses of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and the numerous streams that flowed into and from them. This formed a cohesive philosophical lineage from which Western Civilization developed.

And i can certainly lay Social Darwinism on Darwin's door.. mix that with your assertion the Man IS just another species.. and you have the recipe for modern culture.. which is DEFINED by secular humanism. Like it or not Darwin is a father of the New Age.. and it has little to do with the Western tradition.. with which it is in full revolt. It is in fact, pre pre-socratic.. harkening back to the irrationalism that governed ancient thought.. with those of occasional Dark Ages.. where superstition and magic ruled.
Last edited by coldstream; May 21st, 2013 at 01:33 PM..
 
petros
#46
They are indeed.. If Beyoncé's camel toe and belly button gets any deeper they'll have to use GPR to check for cysts.
 
L Gilbert
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

No, i've read other philosophers. Most of the ancient Pre-Socratics (who first imposed a rational process on mystical speculation) and Socratic (in its method of dialectical inquiry) have been incorporated in some way into Catholic Theology ( through the lens, the reality and revelation of Christ, of course).. most notably in the great syntheses of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and the numerous streams that flowed into and from them. This formed a cohesive philosophical lineage from which Western Civilization developed.

And i can certainly lay Social Darwinism on Darwin's door.. mix that with your assertion the Man IS just another species.. and you have the recipe for modern culture.. which is DEFINED by secular humanism. Like it or not Darwin is a father of the New Age.. and it has little to do with the Western tradition.. with which it is in full revolt. It is in fact, pre pre-socratic.. harkening back to the irrationalism that governed ancient thought.. with those of occasional Dark Ages.. where superstition and magic ruled.

I guess some people are still in the Dark Ages (figuratively).
 
darkbeaver
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

No, i've read other philosophers. Most of the ancient Pre-Socratics (who first imposed a rational process on mystical speculation) and Socratic (in its method of dialectical inquiry) have been incorporated in some way into Catholic Theology ( through the lens, the reality and revelation of Christ, of course).. most notably in the great syntheses of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and the numerous streams that flowed into and from them. This formed a cohesive philosophical lineage from which Western Civilization developed.

And i can certainly lay Social Darwinism on Darwin's door.. mix that with your assertion the Man IS just another species.. and you have the recipe for modern culture.. which is DEFINED by secular humanism. Like it or not Darwin is a father of the New Age.. and it has little to do with the Western tradition.. with which it is in full revolt. It is in fact, pre pre-socratic.. harkening back to the irrationalism that governed ancient thought.. with those of occasional Dark Ages.. where superstition and magic ruled.

Ah the dark ages, along with most of the last five thousand years was ruled by gold and silver merchants, , slave traders and arms manufacturers. Superstition and magic are as useful today as they have always been. We are as easily fooled with practiced applications of packaging and hype as we were then, perhaps even more so since we have been educated to believe nothing of the sort can befall such advanced civilizations.

Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

Impressive display of ignorance, DB and CS.
CS can't grasp the theory of evolution and DB can't grasp what vacuum means.

Well who's state of sin is greater mine or yours. I cannot grasp the aforementioned impossibility and you can. You should not doubt your own impressiveness.
 
L Gilbert
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Ah the dark ages, along with most of the last five thousand years was ruled by gold and silver merchants, , slave traders and arms manufacturers. Superstition and magic are as useful today as they have always been. We are as easily fooled with practiced applications of packaging and hype as we were then, perhaps even more so since we have been educated to believe nothing of the sort can befall such advanced civilizations.



Well who's state of sin is greater mine or yours. I cannot grasp the aforementioned impossibility and you can. You should not doubt your own impressiveness.

I don't swallow the concept of "sin". I don't doubt that there is matter in the "vacuum" of space. It seems to be between 1 and 3 atoms per cubic meter, in fact. IOW, there's dust and gases all over the place out there.
 
darkbeaver
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by L Gilbert View Post

I don't swallow the concept of "sin". I don't doubt that there is matter in the "vacuum" of space. It seems to be between 1 and 3 atoms per cubic meter, in fact. IOW, there's dust and gases all over the place out there.

Ignorance is sin, confess now before the price rises.
 
Dexter Sinister
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

...Dark Ages.. where superstition and magic ruled.

Dark Ages? Isn't the period from about the 5th to the 15th centuries in Europe often called that? And who was running most things at the time? Wasn't it the Roman Catholic Church? Who was it who censored and suppressed Galileo and subjected him to permanent house arrest, despite his being right? Wasn't that the Roman Catholic Church? Who burned Bruno at the stake? And the Maid of Orleans? Who organized and ran the Inquisition, and the Crusades? Wasn't the Roman Catholic Church a major player in those? Seems pretty clear to me that the Roman Catholic Church has been a major contributor to Dark Ages. And how about the claims that god came to earth in human form, performed miracles, cast out demons, healed the sick with a touch, walked on water, calmed the storm with a gesture, became the scapegoat for all human wrongs...? That sure sounds like magic and superstition.
 
darkbeaver
#52
A Dissident View of Relativity Theory by William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.


A Dissident View of Relativity Theory
William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.
IE Editorial, Issue 59
Welcome dear colleagues to another special issue of IE Magazine. This year marks the 100th anniversary of Albert Einstein’s famous paper1 on special relativity; consequently, we dedicate this issue to an inspection of his work. There is a cornucopia of written material celebrating Einstein’s genius, his achievements, his thoughts, and his politics. There is also a wealth of controversial material to draw upon, so much in fact that this is the third issue on this theme (after IE #38 and 39). Although the majority of the literature makes the case for Einstein’s theory of relativity, you—the astute reader—will soon discover that this is not one of them.


Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory
The mainstream authorities are fond of saying that GPS would not work if it weren’t for Einstein’s relativity. Clifford Will of Washington University has been quoted31 as saying:
SR has been confirmed by experiment so many times that it borders on crackpot to say there is something wrong with it. Experiments have been done to test SR explicitly. The world’s particle accelerators would not work if SR wasn’t in effect. The global positioning system would not work if special relativity didn’t work the way we thought it did.
Oh really? What does one of the world’s foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein’s theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein’s relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.)


RON HATCH: Relativity in the Light of GPS | EU 2013 - YouTube
 
Niflmir
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

Quantum Mechanics undoes fundamental empirical observation and logical structure.. such as the continuity and integrity of time and space.

Nope. In fact all of the classical solutions of Newtonian Mechanics are a proper subset of the Quantum results: it doesn't undo anything it expands upon them. They are fully retrievable from the quantum state vector. The continuity of space and time is the realm of quantum gravity which is as yet a completely open field of research.

Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

Yup.. the basic understanding of those physics came from the physical properties of electricity developed by the pioneers of electricity and communication (Faraday, Bell, Edison, Tesla etc.).. by hypothesis and experiment.. The mathematical speculation of GR and QM played almost no part.

Yes, and what Lorentz and Poincare did was to take Maxwell's equations and determine their symmetries. If all matter is electrical in nature than those are the symmetries of nature. What came of their research was special relativity, and they discovered it 6 full years before Einstein.

Project those symmetries onto gravity (assert that the symmetries of electrical matter are the fundamental symmetries of nature) and the simplest possible theory is General Relativity.

No mathematical speculation is needed. Unless the statement, "When I raise my right hand, my reflection raises its left hand," is mathematical speculation. I doubt you think of the properties of a mirror are speculation, but anybody who would make such a claim has no business talking about electromagnetism, quantum mechanics or gravity.
 
petros
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Wasn't it the Roman Catholic Church?

Nope. Not at all. You don't know the difference between the RCC and the Holy Roman Empire which was never run from Rome?

No wonder you're so flippin' jaded.
 
darkbeaver
+1
#55
Darwins job was to separate man from god in the mind of the masses. A proper god concept is absolutely necessary for normal human development.
 
coldstream
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter Sinister View Post

Dark Ages? Isn't the period from about the 5th to the 15th centuries in Europe often called that? And who was running most things at the time? Wasn't it the Roman Catholic Church? Who was it who censored and suppressed Galileo and subjected him to permanent house arrest, despite his being right? Wasn't that the Roman Catholic Church? Who burned Bruno at the stake? And the Maid of Orleans? Who organized and ran the Inquisition, and the Crusades? Wasn't the Roman Catholic Church a major player in those? Seems pretty clear to me that the Roman Catholic Church has been a major contributor to Dark Ages. And how about the claims that god came to earth in human form, performed miracles, cast out demons, healed the sick with a touch, walked on water, calmed the storm with a gesture, became the scapegoat for all human wrongs...? That sure sounds like magic and superstition.


I think i covered that before.. in separating the wheat from the chaff.. the Church of Christ from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.. the former is divine and reliable.. the latter is human and thus.. very flawed.. and at time erronious.
 
L Gilbert
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I think i covered that before.. in separating the wheat from the chaff.. the Church of Christ from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.. the former is divine and reliable.. the latter is human and thus.. very flawed.. and at time erronious.

Reliable? lol Who are the authors of religious doctrine, dogma, and rhetoric but the same humans you admit to being flawed and erroneous.
Keep arguing in circles, please. It's pretty comical.

BTW, the HRE was just the political counterpart to the RCC, probably developed to keep the Church from being directly linked to wars and whatnot.
 
Dexter Sinister
+1
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

I think i covered that before.. in separating the wheat from the chaff.. the Church of Christ from the institution of the Roman Catholic Church.. the former is divine and reliable.. the latter is human and thus.. very flawed.. and at time erronious.

Communication between the two them must be pretty poor. How long did it take to get the message about slavery after centuries of supporting the institution? Still hasn't got the message about the equality of women and the reality of homosexuality.

That's just the standard excuse that's always trotted out when the church is confronted with its past bad behaviour. It was people alright, people claiming to lead, speak and act on divine authority through direct apostolic succession from Jesus himself, and if that's not the real church then there isn't one. You try to get the church off the hook for its malfeasance by claiming it wasn't the church; I call it weaselling and I call BS on it.
 
darkbeaver
#59
Black Hunger

Posted on May 13, 2013



Retired Professor of Electrical Engineering Donald Scott, author of The Electric Sky, wrote about the way plasma acts in the Universe: “Plasma phenomena are scalable. Their electrical and physical properties remain the same, independent of the size of the plasma. In a laboratory plasma, of course, things happen much more quickly than on, say, galaxy scales, but the phenomena are identical—they obey the same laws of physics. In other words we can make accurate models of cosmic scale plasma behavior in the lab, and generate effects that mimic those observed in space. It has been demonstrated that plasma phenomena can be scaled to fourteen orders of magnitude. (Alfvén hypothesized that they can be scaled to 28 orders or more!) Electric currents flowing in plasmas produce most of the observed astronomical phenomena that remain inexplicable if we assume gravity and magnetism to be the only forces at work.”
Irrespective of their source, X-rays in space are not created by gravitational fields regardless of how strong they are theorized to be. Since plasma is composed of charged particles, the particles are accelerated by electric currents and spiral in the resulting magnetic fields, creating synchrotron radiation that can shine in all high energy frequencies, including extreme ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
 
Dexter Sinister
#60
Produced a scaled down electric star in the lab, has he?
 

Similar Threads

1
Muse - Black Holes and Revelations
by Blackleaf | May 25th, 2019
0
E. coli caught in the act of evolving
by B00Mer | Sep 30th, 2012
10
Black Holes
by Libra Girl | May 1st, 2007
1
Spammers Evolving
by Cosmo | Jun 26th, 2006
9
Brain *human* evolving..
by Ocean Breeze | Sep 11th, 2005