it's big but its particle minute. the ghost is host it only appears it wants. Christmas is big too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Printable View
it's big but its particle minute. the ghost is host it only appears it wants. Christmas is big too.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
I don't count Dawkins as a scientist. I wouldn't trust anything he said without having a real scientist confirm it. I'm pretty sure he's an atheist. I do my best to not associate him with others who call themselves "atheist" unless they deliberately side with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The so-called "science" he claims to be part of is just a belief system. He uses science as a way to assert self-righteous superiority over others. When atheists do such things, I view it as delusional, irrational thinking. Hardly scientific.
The current atheistic influence over science I hope is coming to an end. Not only are militant atheists a nuisance to authentic, theistic religions, they are a drag on scientific activity.
Here's a video of Rupert Sheldrake presenting ten dogmas of science. Scientists like him give me some hope. It is an 18-minute summary of his book "The Science Delusion".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zamrs3nE9ys
I don't count you as a gatekeeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Sheldrake is best described as a "former scientist", who nobody in science takes any more seriously than Uri Geller. Actually Geller had more success in fooling some scientists into believing that his ideas had validity than Sheldrake; he's a much better conjurer.Quote:
Here's a video of Rupert Sheldrake presenting ten dogmas of science. Scientists like him give me some hope...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Hocus Pocus. Take Bohr and Oppenheimer out of that list of insanes.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Edison? A robber of patents.
Freud? A parricide and phylogenetic biopisser.
Etc.
The particular TED talk I posted was temporarily censored. Here's Sheldrake's response to that:Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu...yer_detailpage
My view of the controversy is that militant atheists can't handle a scientific discussion. But that is to be expected. They have been a ball and chain around science.
It left TED in a difficult position, caught between the Scylla of allowing pseudo-science to pollute their offerings, and the Charybdis of appearing like book burners. Their rather clunky compromise was to remove the talk from the archive, and stick it in their blog with lots of warnings. Of course now others are posting the video without the warnings, calling it a TED talk, and not pointing out that the scientific panel at TED have disowned it. Note, also, it is not a TED talk, but a TEDx talk; TED does not vet speakers at independent TEDx events. TEDx talks are removed from the TEDx archive if they are wrong to the point of being unscientific, and that includes misrepresenting the scientific process itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
TED really need to vet their speakers and drop the confusing TEDx designation!
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....t-is-dropping/
The most militant atheist I know of is Francis Crick, he resigned from his College because they built a chapel, taking on Winston Churchill:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchi...mbridge#Chapel
Churchill wrote to him saying that no-one need enter the chapel unless they wished to do so, and therefore it need not need to be a problem. Crick replied with a cheque for 10 Guineas saying that, if that were the case, the money should be used for the establishment of a brothel.
Here's an article about the gravitational "constant" changing. The change in this "constant" is more evident. The article comes without an agenda unlike the one you referenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ate-slide-show
What are the metaphysical consequences of the idea that these physical "constants" are not like mathematical constants such as pi? Why does this idea bother some people so much? At some decimal point, I would expect such things to vary not just because the measurements are less controllable, but because these "constants" don't stay the same.
Also, as soon as an article, such as the one you cited, can be tagged as partisan, it becomes limited as evidence for me. Even the data that is cited becomes questionable. I don't trust it and would need to see the evidence from someone who isn't partisan or who takes the opposite position.
The idea that the gravitational "constant" changes is controversial, but it remains a possibility because it doesn't upset basic theories. If general relativity is correct, then the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames is a tautology from the geometry of spacetime.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
This makes it a lynch pin of physics, like the conservation of mass-energy. To question it is like asking, "Is the Pope catholic?" To question it you better have iron clad arguments, and it's probably best not to have a reputation as a failed biologist with pseudo-scientific tendencies.
Just as FYI, one can also consider the possibility that the fine structure "constant" is perhaps not constant as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constantQuote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You don't need "iron clad arguments" to question something. If there is data showing that measurements differ that is evidence enough to suggest further research is necessary. If you think you do need more evidence than that, then Sheldrake is correct in claiming that this idea, that physical "constants" are the same as mathematical constants, is a dogma.
To question something does not mean that one has provided proof. That remains to be seen, but it appears that questioning whether these physical "constants" are fixed or not is mainstream science. It hasn't been proven one way or the other.
What I find interesting about the Sheldrake-TED controversy is that it seems as if TED's scientific board distorted data on the speed of light to try to justify stopping the distributiion of Sheldrake's talk. Here is Sheldrake's comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SGzu...yer_detailpage (3:18-3:45 in the video)
"The statement [by the science board] was so ludicrously wrong, you know. It said my remarks on the speed of light had all been refuted and it didn't drop by 20 kilometers per second between 1928 and 1945. It was very easy to show that in fact it did and, you know, the figures they quoted simply left out those dates. It was very easy to refute every one of their points." (my emphasis)
I would think this data should not be controversial. Why did the board think it could get away unchallenged, or if challenged, not have to recant? It seems they felt they could rely on their authority to say anything, true or not, and get away with it. This is a serious problem and strikes at the credibility of such sources.
On the article I quoted:Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....t-is-dropping/
The author is a real, top-notch, biologist, and he's quoting a world renowned expert on relativity. You may doubt the data but you better have some very good reasons! You can't say Sean Carroll is partisan, he's just putting forward the considered opinion of the world of physics.
"What the crackpots don’t understand is that (1) scientists would love to find that the speed of light has been changing, they’d be giving out Nobel prizes like Halloween candy; and (2) in some sense, the speed of light can‘t change. It’s a dimensionful quantity — it can only change relative to something else, and there aren’t any other absolute velocities in physics." - Sean Carroll
In the world of physics, questioning the constancy of the speed of light is like suggesting the earth is flat, which is why Carroll uses such a strong word as "crackpot".
Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/...-breaks-record
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum. Of course, light is slowed down in a medium, like air or water. That was discovered by Jean Foucault in the mid 19th century.
In 1983 the following SI definition of the metre was adopted:
The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. So c is actually constant by definition!
You keep bringing up the issue of authority. But what is authority in science?Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
Authorities are not popes speaking ex cathedra that one has to agree with or one gets excommunicated. Authorities are not saints or angels that one might as well agree with since they obviously made it. Authorities are not avatars or incarnations of the divine. Authorities in science are simply shortcuts.
I can't perform every experiment myself so I have to trust what others have done. They are shortcuts. I can't measure every physical "constant", so I use a reference book or database. It is a shortcut. I am also responsible for the authorities I choose to trust. If I use an out-of-date reference book, database or unreliable individual to get the speed of light, or whatever, it is my responsibility.
What clues would I use to accept or reject an authority? Here are some:
1) If the authority is engaging in partisan activity that I find suspicious, I reject that authority. (This is enough for me to reject people like Dawkins.)
2) If I have found that the authority has misrepresented evidence, I reject that authority. (This is enough to reject the TED science board.)
Regarding the question of whether the speed of light was measured 20 km per second less between 1928 and 1945 should not require any discussion. It either did or it didn't. Since TED appears to have recanted their objections, that is enough evidence for me that Sheldrake was correct on the points of fact.
As far as having "very good reasons" for questioning something, all I have to ask is whether the measurements varied or not. To the best of my knowledge, based on the authorities I currently trust, they did. Even Carroll's chart shows variability.
All you have done is proved Sheldrake's point that questioning whether physical "constants" are mathematical constants is the same as challenging a dogma. Apparently, it is so much of a dogma that to question it earns one scorn from people like Carroll.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
You are speaking of the world of mathematics, not physics. Mathematics is a language for physics. Physics is not the language for mathematics. The latter could go on and on, on its own. But the imagination without physical knowledge is like a toilet without water. Nonsense. That's why Oppenheimer, Teller, and others involved in the Manhattan project let Einstein go on its own and his letter to the president had only his lonely stupid signature. Einstein was lost in mathematics without physics. He even believed, as stupid as ever, that an atomic explosion could bring about an unending chain reaction. He hardly understood the role of the density necessary for that to happen. He even thought that mathematical equations were eternal and when he was offered the presidency of Israel, he stupidly exclaimed "Sorry gentlemen, but politics is ever changing while an equation is eternal."Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
The "unending chain reaction" possibility was taken very seriously by other scientists, especially Teller. The actual calculation that showed it was extremely unlikely was initiated by Oppenheimer in 1942, who set Hans Bethe to using early IBM digital computers. So Einstein was hardly being stupid.
http://www.metabunk.org/threads/debu...-and-cern.692/
Also calling him "stupid as ever" is really stupid; how was he stupid when he was developing the theories of relativity?
Where does that quote on politics and equations come from? I've seen a similar quote unreferenced on the web. He might have said something like that, but it was probably an on off the cuff response to a journalist. Should Einstein just not speak to journalists? That would be snooty. His considered response to the leaders of the state of Israel was:
"I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it. All my life I have dealt with objective matters, hence I lack both the natural aptitude and the experience to deal properly with people and to exercise official functions. Therefore I would also be an inappropriate candidate for this high task, even when my old age didn’t interfere with my forces more and more..."
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2010/02...-einstein.html
Imagine saying that to a journalist, UK tabloids would reduce it to, "Einstein can't deal with people!", so he was perhaps wise to go for waffle about equations and eternity.