Jack Lewis wrote:
This is a stupid analogy Regner and you know it! I'll now state the obvious: We KNOW that babies are born because we have made them and seen them.Jack, there is nothing wrong with that analogy - and please read what I write here before
dismissing me.* In the case of babies we have several ways of knowing about births - that is obvious. * In the case of stars we only have what corresponds to the "snapshot of a busy pedestrian
street" I wrote about in my last post.
It could be said that the appearance of the I.C.R. building, that was being observed by smart clever scientists every Sunday, somehow built itself because they didn't see the builders building it because they didn't work on Sundays! A reasonable conclusion? How would they go about explaining it in a materialistic way?I know you think we are pretty stupid, and I don't even know why I reply to your posts. The instance of a star's birth lasts something like a millionth of its life time - it's about the
same ratio for humans, by the way.I don't know what the I.C.R. building is, but let's say it took 4 months to build. With your analogy, the fraction of one millionth would correspond to looking carefully at the building site, 24/7, for all four months, seeing all the building going on, the frame, the flooring, the walls, the plumbing, the electricity going in, the furniture going in, etc., etc. - and missing the 10 seconds where they cut the red ribbon because somebody was standing in front. Back to star-birth: We see the turbulent and cold gas clouds, we see the very dense knots of these clouds, and we see the emission lines that are (right now) cooling these clouds, which means they are contracting. With infra red telescopes we can even see the bright dot in the middle of the densest parts, which is the proto-star. We see the jets and the accretion disks of forming stars. In the same neighborhood we see bright blue stars evacuating big bubbles in the gas cloud from the intense stellar winds from these bright and hot stars. They are very short-lived and often we also see remnants of those that were yet more massive and already went supernovae. All parts of this scenario matches not only the observations, but also
agrees with all the fundamental physics listed in my next paragraph, below.
How much of your comment about AiG's scenario is based on well worn assumptions - the Big Bang for a start.
Big bang doesn't enter here. To get to those interpretations of our observations, we use * Newtons laws * Atomic physics - quantum physics * Thermodynamics * HydrodynamicsVery fundamental laws of physics that have proven themselves in the lab as well as i nature, wherever we have looked. They are therefore not mere assumptions.
The assumption is that laws of physics works the same everywhere - and no observations have so far challenged that.
Their ignorance is real enough allright but through lack of facts and not the derogatory type you accuse them of. I could accuse you of a higher level of ignorance which is 'wilful' and a denial of the obvious.
You are entitled to your opinion.
It would be refreshing to hear, just for once, a scientist saying 'we simply don't know'
We do that all the time - whereas you seem to know everything...
without then saying 'but we think this or we think that', thinking or even dreaming is cheap!What is wrong with an educated opinion when it is labeled as such - you are free
to take it or leave it.I know you want to picture us as being completely in La-La-land with no constraints of the real world - but the constraints of physics are quite limiting and it takes hard work, not
illicit drugs, to do physics/astronomy.
The insistence that there must always be a materialistic answer to everything is a wanton denial of that which begs differently.
Nothing begs differently. Regner
Regards Jack Regner Trampedach wrote:James, SNIPa) Observing stars is like taking a photo of a busy pedestrian street and from such a single snapshot find out how people change during their lives. The relevant question here, ishow many births have you witnessed while shopping, or commuting to work?We have just recently found the maternity ward and made instruments (space-based infrared telescopes) to peer into the maternity ward (cold, dense, dusty gas-clouds). b) There is no sign at the surface of a proto-star turning into a proper star, and the process is gradual anyway, with the nuclear fusion at the centre, slowly ramping up. ^ c) We have seen the pregnant mothers and the newborn babies being carried away to the nursery. Still assuming there is no birth taking place in between seems a bit silly to me.But we are of course still observing to cover the full process. To be continued (soon). Regner j a wrote:Regner,I realised that my question in the email below, to you, Regner, was contained within my short responce to Paul, so you might not have noticed it. So I thought I might resend so that you would know I had asked you something and could repond, even if to say no. I am curious to know if you see anything substantially wrong with the reported facts in the linked article.JA... */j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>/* wrote: Paul, I wonder.... what the utillity is of things like the "big bang" or "abiogenesis" or "evolution" or even "star formation"??? I wonder, Regner, if you have the time to read this short article and give us your thoughts on the "facts" reported within.http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/stars-of-heaven-confirmJA... */Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>/* wrote: Robert S I truly despair when I read <From sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007> this thread, and similar. (See below). Firstly, the paranoia. It seems to be the first shot fired by those who can't get their views accepted by honest workers in the fields in question. But worse, there is the flood of words which seem designed to attempt to smother the discoveries of the past 500(?) years. These discoveries are open to disproof by any who can demonstrate falsity. No one does, which leads to the possibility that no one can -- not because of ineptitude but because the disproof does not exist. If, instead of the flood of words, we were to be treated to a series of simple, testable geocentric hypotheses equivalent to F = ma and those which flow from it, which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Sun with all its mass circles the tiny Earth then you'd have a prayer. It would also help your case if you could explain how the enormous body of interlocking and mutually supporting knowledge of the physical functioning of the Solar System can be repeatedly demonstrated and yet be false. However, I think the thing which bothers me most is resorting to Maxwell and quasars and alleged false proofs of relativity. This is taking a steam hammer to crack an egg. If the Sun circles the Earth you should be able to show it within the sphere encompassing the Solar System. My guess is that if the universe ended at the Oort Cloud, eff would still equal em-ae and the Earth would still circle the Sun. I have two beautiful examples of how science triumphs. The first concerns Gregor J Mendel who first worked out the principles of inheritance (not money but genes). He was an Augustinian priest (a cloistered order I think - in any event he worked in isolation) who when he died, had his papers burned by his abbot because the abbot feared that this "knowledge", if widely available, would be a threat to the church. Today his work is recognised and respected because it has utility, ie -- it works. The other is the disastrous effect of doctrinal domination of science, in this case the Soviet Union and its "Soviet theory of Genetics" (as though ideology could influence truth, ie -- what is). The man the Soviets chose to back was named Lysenko. After 50 years(?) of failure to demonstrate the truth of his claims, with the Soviet Union falling further and further behind in this matter and the matters upon which this false view of genetics bore, they had to reverse their position. His theory did not have utility, it didn't work. The point I'm making is that science is about discovery -- it is not about invention. If you seek to disseminate the theory that in a gravity field the pan with 900g in it will sink and the pan with 1000 g in it will rise, you will forever be shown to be wrong. Paul D PS Almost missed this one. From your post below - '...then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have a voice in academia today.' Would you also give an equal voice to a flat Earth on four elephant's backs on a turtle's back in a really big puddle? The concave Earth? A flat circular Earth in the middle of a Tychonian system with the South Pole a really high wall of ice at the edge? And all the other alternatives? I'm sure the proponents of these alternative systems have explanations which they regard as at least as valid as geocentrism and that if you get representation then so should they. It's interesting how the proponents of all the odd ball theories seem to think it is just them against orthodoxy.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooFrom sungenis@xxxxxxx Wed Dec 19 14:05:43 2007 Re:Integrity in science. RT: So speculating on peoples motives is examining evidence? I don't really care about peoples motives, social status, gender, hair-colour, whether somebody has found a quote that can fit into their world-view, etc., etc... RS: I wasn’t speculating. The quote tells us precisely what Hawking’s motivations are – to keep the earth out of the center of the universe, despite the fact that the cosmological evidence shows him that it best fits in the center, and that he has to concoct an alternate cosmology just so that he can keep the earth out of the center. And there are more quotes from Hawking that say the same thing. If you would read the book, you would see dozens of such motivations by today’s scientists to keep the earth out of the center, in spite of the evidence before them. The reason is simple. They know precisely what it means to have the earth in the center – it means that their whole career in science will be over and they are going to admit that science took a wrong turn 500 years ago. But today, a scientist can’t even express his doubt in evolution without losing his job. Can you imagine what academia would do if you, Regner Tem., said the earth was standing still in space? You’d be picking up your last paycheck. If you come to this discussion believing that one’s philosophy, his religion, his commitments to the establishment, his upbringing, etc., don’t effect how he views the evidence, then you’re not living in reality. This is precisely why I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment as my first piece of evidence, since we are told there are at least two ways to interpret the results. If one is trying to keep the earth moving, one will interpret M/M Einstein’s way (and Einstein said so, by his own admission, and you can read his words in GWW. His motivation was to keep the earth moving, even though the salient features of the experiment were suggesting that it was not be moving). If you want the earth to remain still, you will interpret the results another way. As a scientist, you know as well as I do that INTERPRETATION of the experimental results is the crux of the issue. And since interpretation is often a mixture of subjectivity and objectivity, then interpretations of experiments are always subject to scrutiny. What we are trying to say is (a) Einstein’s way of interpreting M/M not only avoids Occam’s razor, it is, for all intents and purposes, absurd; and (b) since a fixed earth is a valid, reasonable and scientifically supportable interpretation of M/M, then the science establishment has no right to teach that heliocentrism is correct, much less been scientifically proven. Hence we should have a voice in academia today. But the reason we aren’t allowed to have a voice is that there are many ideologues, like Hawking, Sagan, Gould, Davies, and hundreds of others, who simply don’t want the public to know what the alternative interpretations are. I’m not making this up, Regner. I have documented their motivations by their own printed words, and that is precisely why I spent four years gathering quotes of their "motivations" in GWW. There is no argument. They’ve told us what their agenda is, and I suspect you have the same agenda. RT: I care about the physical evidence. I have seen a few excerpts of your books, but, as I have said before, I don't have time to read the thousands of pages. Since you wrote the book, you should be able to distill the key findings into a couple of challenges for me, and we can take the discussion from there and get into all the details. That is what I would like to do, because I think it would be the most efficient. Do you have objections to that? RS: Ok, you don’t have time, and I don’t have time. I’m a busy man like you. I’ve got nine kids and three book deadlines to meet, on top of coaching two basketball teams. The reason I gave you the Michelson-Morley experiment to explain first is that your answer will tell us exactly how you approach this whole issue. I consider it a test for you, Regner. I don’t know anything about you other than you came on board this discussion group. Hence, not to accuse you now, but if I see you fudging with the evidence of the first challenge I give you, I can safely assume you’re going to do the same with the other four challenges I have, and thus it’s not worth my time. I’ve been through this many times before with naysayers, and I’ve been teaching for 35 years, enough to know when someone is just being obstinate and when someone really has solid objections. I want to see which one you are. And practically speaking, if you’re involved in an intense discussion with Allen, and as you say below, "I am sorry that I don't have time to take on more than one discussion at a time, but that is how it is," then my suggestion is not to ask for more than you can handle by insisting that I give you four challenges instead of one. Obviously, as is now the case with Allen, when you give your answer to the first challenge, I’m going to come back with questions and objections for you, and we are going to go round and round on it until it is exhausted, which may take months. So why would we want to clog up the works with four other challenges that are going to require the same intensity? It doesn’t make sense to me. For the record, the other challenges I was thinking of giving you but held them back in order to see what you would do with the first challenge, involve such things as: (1) center of mass; (2) parallax and retrograde motion; (3) centrifugal and Coriolis forces; (4)Arago, Hoek, Airy telescope results; (5)Maxwell’s equations; (6)quasars, gamma ray bursters, etc; (7) the Sagnac experiment; (8)false proofs of relativity; (9) difficulties with a rotating and translating earth, and many other such issues. But again, they are all superfluous if we can’t get to first base with the first challenge. This is the most reasonable approach, and I hope you will agree. Robert Sungenis------------------------------------------------------------------------Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now<http://au.rd.yahoo.com/mail/taglines/default_all/mail/spankey/*http://au.yahoo.com/worldsbestmail/spankey/>.------------------------------------------------------------------------Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping>