Old Earth vs Young Earth Debate

[gnostic]

Exactly. ". . . they don´t meet the “testing” and “evidence” stage of Scientific Method". Which is why I am testing their theories and investigating their astrophysical problems and discoveries where the logics fails.

I have stated that only theoretical physics like multiverse model and cyclical model don't meet the requirements of Scientific Method.

I didn't say they are all cosmology are "theoretical", and quite a fair be have been tested, especially that of the current theory of the Milky Way.

And quite frankly, I don't think you are qualified to use your personal "logic" to say what is factual and what isn't, especially when you can't distinguish myth from factual reality.

 

[Native]

I have stated that only theoretical physics like multiverse model and cyclical model don't meet the requirements of Scientific Method.

I didn't say they are all cosmology are "theoretical", and quite a fair be have been tested, especially that of the current theory of the Milky Way.

And quite frankly, I don't think you are qualified to use your personal "logic" to say what is factual and what isn't, especially when you can't distinguish myth from factual reality.

----------------
OK to your first sentence. The second about the Milky Way is tested it also is contradicted according to the Standard Cosmology.

About the third sentence: You are contradicting your self simply because you cannot see the connections and thus fail to see the logics - and STILL you just take creation myths to be fairy tales.

 

[gnostic]

About the third sentence: You are contradicting your self simply because you cannot see the connections and thus fail to see the logics - and STILL you just take creation myths to be fairy tales.

No, Native.

Don't words in my mouth.

What I think is this:

You think science and myth are the same, I don't. That's your problem, not mine. I just don't see that myths should be treated as "science".

 

[exchemist]

No, Native.

Don't words in my mouth.

What I think is this:

You think science and myth are the same, I don't. That's your problem, not mine. I just don't see that myths should be treated as "science".

It is evident that Native has no understanding of science whatsoever.

 

[Native]

You think science and myth are the same, I don't. That's your problem, not mine. I just don't see that myths should be treated as "science".

-----------------
Which is why you can´t see the logics. I don´t think you sincerely tries either.

But it´s fine by me if you take the ancient myths as fairy tales and old hearsayings.

Edit: Myths or not - I´m still on the right track regarding cosmological matters in our Milky Way.

 

[Native]

It is evident that Native has no understanding of science whatsoever.

---------------
Ordinary persons/debaters uses arguments and sentences when stating something

 

[exchemist]

---------------
Ordinary persons/debaters uses arguments and sentences when stating something

What I wrote is a sentence.

The evidence is in many of your posts, e.g. nos. 283 and 298, to take just two recent instances. 283 I responded to, pointing out how silly it was. 298 I could not be bothered, but for a start talking about X-ray "forces" is not something anyone who understood physics would do.

 

[Native]

What I wrote is a sentence.

------------
But not an argumentative sentence.

It´s not my fault if anyone of your clever scientists count off x-rays as an electric force, but then you can forward them, and yourself, to this link - Gamma Rays

 

[exchemist]

------------
But not an argumentative sentence.

It´s not my fault if anyone of your clever scientists count off x-rays as an electric force, but then you can forward them, and yourself, to this link - Gamma Rays

Thank you for this new piece of evidence that you have no clue at all about science. The link you refer to says nothing whatever about any force due to gamma rays or X-rays. So that's 3 posts with evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to science.

I wonder if you can reply to this without generating a fourth?

 

[Polymath257]

------------
But not an argumentative sentence.

It´s not my fault if anyone of your clever scientists count off x-rays as an electric force, but then you can forward them, and yourself, to this link - Gamma Rays

Why do you this supports your claim?

 

[Native]

Thank you for this new piece of evidence that you have no clue at all about science. The link you refer to says nothing whatever about any force due to gamma rays or X-rays.

------------
It´s not my fault that you or your clever scientists don´t consider gamma- and x-rays to belong to the electric force.

Remember: "Gravity" is just one of the fundamental forces and even the weakest link/force of them all.

 

[Native]

Why do you this supports your claim?

Why don´t you think for yourself ?

 

[Polymath257]

Why don´t you think for yourself ?

I do, which is why I reject your claims. I understand what a gamma ray is. I also understand what an E&M *field* is and how it differs from a *force*.

Perhaps you should review Maxwell's equations? You are, after all, the one that wants E&M to be the dominant force in the universe.

 

[Native]

I do, which is why I reject your claims. I understand what a gamma ray is. I also understand what an E&M *field* is and how it differs from a *force*.

-----------
What??? Isn´t electromagnetism a force? Doesn´t electromagnetism works in electric currents and electromagnetic fields?

 

[exchemist]

------------
It´s not my fault that you or your clever scientists don´t consider gamma- and x-rays to belong to the electric force.

Remember: "Gravity" is just one of the fundamental forces and even the weakest link/force of them all.

Yet more evidence you are talking rubbish. Electromagnetic radiation is not a force. You spoke in post 298 of "X-ray forces" and "gamma ray forces". This is nonsensical. EM radiation is a phenomenon due to electromagnetic fields, which give rise to the EM forces. That is quite different. If you knew any science, you would be aware of the distinction.

And it is misleading to say gravity is "the weakest" of the fundamental interactions or "forces" unless you show how you are making the comparison.

For gravity, F = GmM/r². This is Newton's Law of Gravitation.

For electrostatic force, F=k(e)qQ/r² This is Coulomb's Law.

Both are inverse square laws, by which the strength of the force falls with the square of the distance (r), separating a pair of objects with mass or net electric charge respectively. However the strength of F depends on the size of q, Q and m, M, obviously.

If you take a single atom then yes the electrostatic force is far stronger than gravity. But, for this very reason, it is extremely hard to separate very large amounts of charge, as it involves doing enormous amounts of work, i.e. requiring enormous amounts of energy. This is why we find that everyday objects do not carry a significant net electric charge. If they did, there would soon be a discharge, due to the powerful electrostatic force between the separated charges, to restore them to electrical neutrality. So q and Q in macroscopic objects (such as milk bottles, or planets), are always in practice very tiny compared with the number of charged subatomic particles present in an object.

However with gravity, the force is weak enough that massive objects can be separated without doing nearly so much work. So m and M can consist of objects containing billions upon billions of atoms. This allows the matter in the universe to be spread out, not all clumped together. (This is why you are strong enough to pick up a milk bottle for example.)

So the paradox is that it is the weakness of gravity, on a per atom basis, that leaves it alone, out of all the interactions of nature, that can exert an influence on huge, separated objects, at ranges of billions of kilometres.

If you knew some science, you would understand this.

 

[viole]

-----------
What??? Isn´t electromagnetism a force? Doesn´t electromagnetism works in electric currents and electromagnetic fields?

I don’t think there are forces. Just resistances to deviations from natural paths in spacetime dictated by fields. I am not a physicists, but I can imagine force is a deprecated term at graduate level.

Consider gravity. Do you feel any force if you fall from a skycraper?

Caveat: thought experiment. Do not try it for real.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

-----------
What??? Isn´t electromagnetism a force? Doesn´t electromagnetism works in electric currents and electromagnetic fields?

Electromagnetism is a force. Electromagnetic fields are not. They *induce* forces on charged particles, but are not, themselves, forces. Electric currents are also not forces. They will induce a magnetic field circling the current, and that magnetic field can induce a force on moving charged particles, but the current itself is not a force.

In the same way x-rays and gamma-rays are NOT forces. They are alternating electromagnetic fields. They can induce forces on charged particles, but that is very different than being a force themselves.

One thing that shows how little of this you understand is your lack of precision when discussing this stuff. That shows basic confusion between things like force, fields, charges, currents, energy, etc. Those are all very different things.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I asked:
Native said: ↑
"Oh, yes? Show me the Standard Model calculations on the formation in our Milky Way. Remember then, that the calculations have to obey the laws of energy conservation and describe the entire dynamics of formation and motion".


---------------
Oh, I took your earlier self confident replies as you yourself are able to make such calculations since you claim "dark matter" to have been discovered.

Your "when" will be NEVER.

And they also can´t explain my question because they make a full stop of explanations when it comes to understanding the formation in the galactic center where the scientists meet another of their Standard Cosmology gravity ghosts, namely the so called "heavy black hole" where "everything disappear" according to the standing cosmology.

Such a "black hole" entity is nonsens and it violates the laws of energy conservation. Compared to this nonsense, the ancient people claimed everything to form in eternal circuital patterns of creation, dissolution and re-creation.

Now THAT´S a statement which obeys the logics of conservation laws

Why don't you go write a paper then, and submit it for peer review?

 

[gnostic]

Which is why you can´t see the logics. I don´t think you sincerely tries either.

Sorry, but you don’t seem to realise that your “logic” is terribly flawed.

In fact, you don’t understand science as well as you think. Both exchemist and Polymath257, whom you have arguing with too, are attempting to explain to you basic physics terms, because you seemed awfully confused with terms such as energy, forces, fields, EM, gravity, etc, especially with the 1st terms which you have used synonymously as one.

You should go back to high school or 1st year uni, and take up physics up again (if you haven’t already done so).

Because if you cannot understand distinctions between energy, forces and fields, how do you expect something that you clearly don’t understand.

 

[Native]

Yet more evidence you are talking rubbish. Electromagnetic radiation is not a force. You spoke in post 298 of "X-ray forces" and "gamma ray forces". This is nonsensical. EM radiation is a phenomenon due to electromagnetic fields, which give rise to the EM forces. That is quite different. If you knew any science, you would be aware of the distinction.

-----------------
Electric currents creates perpendicular magnetic fields which affects the surroundings = Electromagnetic forces. I don´t make distinctions where there are non.

And it is misleading to say gravity is "the weakest" of the fundamental interactions or "forces" unless you show how you are making the comparison.

-----------
Even gaseous moist overcome your "gravity" when lifting up in the atmosphere. This is indeed a very week force, I would say.

If you take a single atom then yes the electrostatic force is far stronger than gravity. But, for this very reason, it is extremely hard to separate very large amounts of charge, as it involves doing enormous amounts of work, i.e. requiring enormous amounts of energy. This is why we find that everyday objects do not carry a significant net electric charge.

------------
So because "it involves doing enormous amounts of work", scientists doesn´t work with the very large amounts of energy? And then scientists just reject it all together? And you call this science?

However with gravity, the force is weak enough that massive objects can be separated without doing nearly so much work. So m and M can consist of objects containing billions upon billions of atoms. This allows the matter in the universe to be spread out, not all clumped together. (This is why you are strong enough to pick up a milk bottle for example.)

----------
This is a contradiction by terms! "Gravity" is per definition attractive and the "clumping of matter towards each other" is assumed to be the very and only quality of gravity. "The week gravity allows the matter in the Universe to be spread out"?

This is really funny ! When you have to explain how everything hangs together, you use gravity - and when you have to explain how everything is spread out in the Universe, you also use gravity

So the paradox is that it is the weakness of gravity, on a per atom basis, that leaves it alone, out of all the interactions of nature, that can exert an influence on huge, separated objects, at ranges of billions of kilometres.

--------------------
Your explanation is certainly a paradox, that´s for sure. It´s more pure speculations than explanations.

If you knew some science, you would understand this.

---------------
From your reply here, I at least got the understanding that your scientific understanding is to ignore forces because they involve too much work to grasp.