Ancient and Modern Creation Stories

[Polymath257]

Can you argue against my notion of that it is MOTION and not TIME that determines the conservation law?

Yes, actually. It is time invariance of the basic laws that leads to the conservation law via Noether's theorem.

 

[Native]

That *was* tried. It was called MOND. And it failed. It turns out that even with modified laws for motion, dark matter is *still* required to explain the details.

NO. NOT if you include the rest of the fundamental forces besides "gravity".

No, it doesn't. It just shows there are phenomena that we hadn't seen before that we have to investigate and understand. Surprises happen in *every* area of study. That doesn't mean the whole subject has to be discarded and re-done. It just means we have a bit more work to do.

When a significant discovery which deviates from the predictions in a theory is observed, of course revisions are needed and even the entire binning of a theory.

Yes, science is in the business of getting better and better approximations to the truth. Since we can *never* know that we actually have the truth, that is the next best thing to do. And yes, in any area of study, there are always new things coming up that are surprising. The universe is wildly diverse. But that in no way means we don't have the basics figured out.

Agreed. An of course this is why all kinds of alternative thinking is needed, especially thinking which goes out of the squared and conventional boxes. Otherwise science will NEVER progress.

 

[Native]

Yes, actually. It is time invariance of the basic laws that leads to the conservation law via Noether's theorem.

Oh I see. "The conservation law works differently in day- and nighttime? You can do better than this I´m sure.
Remember: "Time" is just a human made concept in order to get to the bus in good time.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh I see. "The conservation law works differently in day- and nighttime? You can do better than this I´m sure.
Remember: "Time" is just a human made concept in order to get to the bus in good time.

No, that is precisely the opposite of what I said.

 

[Native]

I did have a factual argument: That you're a hypocrite.

Watch it now! Haven´t you read the moderators advise above?

*** Moderation Post ****

This is to remind everyone of rule 1:


1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.

Please play nice!

 

[Darkstorn]

Like i said, i was making a factual statement, and i have evidence to support it.

So perhaps you are misunderstanding something there.

 

[Native]

No, that is precisely the opposite of what I said.

So, "time" is not needed at all? That´s precisely what I´ve said for a long time now.

 

[Darkstorn]

So, "time" is not needed at all? That´s precisely what I´ve said for a long time now.

Stop putting words into peoples' mouths. You are arguing straw men.

And are being hypocritical while doing it.

 

[Polymath257]

So, "time" is not needed at all? That´s precisely what I´ve said for a long time now.

*sigh* No, it is the time invariance of the laws that leads to the conservation of energy. Just like it is the position invariance that leads to conservation of momentum and angular independence that leads to the conservation of angular momentum.

 

[Native]

Stop putting words into peoples' mouths. You are arguing straw men.

And are being hypocritical while doing it.

What are you doing in this discussion if you are ignorant of the argumentative methods?

 

[Native]

*sigh* No, it is the time invariance of the laws that leads to the conservation of energy. Just like it is the position invariance that leads to conservation of momentum and angular independence that leads to the conservation of angular momentum.

Well then just mention the term "position" (which is matter-motion-related) instead of the human made "time" concept.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You people have heard all kinds of creation stories, but what Non-dual Advaita Hinduism offers is unique (people who have visited Hinduism forum might have heard something about it). Advaita believes in a substrate (Brahman) in the universe. It does not consider it as God (though people with
God-hangover take it as God). It is never given a gender and always referred as 'it'. It does not even require permanency for this substrate because one of the RigVeda hymns, they say that there is a kinship between existence and non-existence.

So whatever be the phase of Brahman, existence or non-existence, it is eternal. It does not change, It is not involved in worldly affairs and is completely neutral to it. It does not demand worship. Now change in Brahman is a very peculiar property, it is that Brahman always changes like the sub-atomic particles do in Feynman's diagrams. It never ceases to change, whether it is part of a thing in universe or not. That is why it is known as changeless. It would have been changeable if it ever left its property of continuous change.

As for the world and universe, that is created in our mind due to thought processes and evolution. Evolution makes us see things in a particular way, though that is not the truth. Each and every thing in the universe is nothing but Brahman. Since Brahman is all that exists in the world, there are no Gods or Goddesses, no birth, no death, no heaven, no hell, no judgement, no reward, no punishment, no re-birth, no deliverance. Advaita does away with all the clap-trap in one go. But it is not easy to understand Brahman, and then internalize the thought. That is what moksha, nirvana, enlightenment are, understanding the mystery of Brahman when one is not left with any further questions.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then just mention the term "position" (which is matter-motion-related) instead of the human made "time" concept.

Motion is the change in position over time. You can't have motion without time.

 

[Darkstorn]

What are you doing in this discussion if you are ignorant of the argumentative methods?

Is this a joke or something? I clearly made it obvious that you used the... "Argumentative method" of straw man. Which is a fallacy.

 

[Native]

Motion is the change in position over time. You can't have motion without time.

This is a circular argument which doesn´t explain anything else but the argumentative method itself.

Well, just try to stop your grandfathers clock and see if everything stops around you. Or try to stop your stopwatch under a motion experiment and see if the experiment stops too.

Or shortly: Try to use logical senses and natural values.

 

[Darkstorn]

This is a circular argument which doesn´t explain anything else but the argument itself.

It's not an argument. It's a definition for "motion."

Motion (physics) - Wikipedia

"In physics, motion is a change in position of an object over time."

So i guess your real beef is with definitions, in which case, good luck.

Well, just try to stop your grandfathers clock and see if everything stops around you.

So time is tied to clocks? Good luck with that thought.

Or try to stop your stopwatch under a motion experiment and see if the experiment stops too.

You cannot be serious.

Or shortly: Try to use logical senses and natural values.

Better idea: You do it.

 

[Polymath257]

This is a circular argument which doesn´t explain anything else but the argument itself.

Well, just try to stop your grandfathers clock and see if everything stops around you. Or try to stop your stopwatch under a motion experiment and see if the experiment stops too.

Or shortly: Try to use logical senses and natural values.

Maybe if you stopped and actually learned some physics you would realize it isn't a circular argument. But it is clear that you aren't interested in understanding. You want to promote your particular strange interpretation of ancient texts.

 

[Darkstorn]

You want to promote your particular strange interpretation of ancient texts.

I think it's becoming more and more clear that when he says "ancient mythology" he actually means his own mythology with splashes of new age blog knowledge thrown in.

/E: Specifically, most of the actual ancient creation myths don't line up with his interpretations. He seems to favor myths that are about pantheism and Abrahamic monotheism.

 

[Native]

I think it's becoming more and more clear that when he says "ancient mythology" he actually means his own mythology with splashes of new age blog knowledge thrown in.

/E: Specifically, most of the actual ancient creation myths don't line up with his interpretations. He seems to favor myths that are about pantheism and Abrahamic monotheism.

I don´t care about your skewed and intrigant personal or mythical perceptions at all.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don´t care about your skewed and intrigant personal or mythical perceptions at all.

Is this one of those so-called "argumentative methods?"

Because it sure looks like one. Called a non-sequitur.

I.E You are just venting air now.