Truth is Timeless

[graybear13]

I needed a good excuse to post a hovind vid in context.
Kevin

I, like Kevin, was looking for a good excuse to post, in context, a statement about how I feel your group's reaction to me...generally....is like the Sanhedrin's reaction to Jesus...."We're not going to let some radical-liberal long haired hippy freak come in here and tell us how the cow ate the cabbage...nail him up!"

This kind of know it all arrogant attitude by any group is wrong and can lead to violence.

The main lesson of Jesus's death is...don't think you know so much, you don't. And keep an open mind....your power as a group is in your ability to change and grow with time.


"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Einstein

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." Einstein

Memo: "Reality is merely an illusion, albiet a very persistant one." uncle albert


gray

[kwlyon]

I, like Kevin, was looking for a good excuse to post, in context, a statement about how I feel your group's reaction to me...generally....is like the Sanhedrin's reaction to Jesus...."We're not going to let some radical-liberal long haired hippy freak come in here and tell us how the cow ate the cabbage...nail him up!"

This kind of know it all arrogant attitude by any group is wrong and can lead to violence.

I agree with you in general...however I don't agree that this has been the general reaction of this group. It's not being a know it all to inform someone that there assertions are categorically incorrect. This forum exist in part to serve as a platform for debate. And yes, debate requires one to state clearly and then defend one's position. I think you may have drawn a little ridicule due to a tendency to just assert things without supporting evidence. I think you are simply trying to "shoot the poop" and others have been a tad confused by this. They generally debate here with the goal of learning something or figuring out how somethings works--they are looking to exchange information and seek input from experts in any given field. The idea is to bring people together from a wide variety of disciplines so that we might, through interaction with these fellows, broaden our understanding of the world around us. They are not here to randomly exchange B.S....and thus they misunderstand your intentions and perhaps come across as hostile.

Kevin

[Doug]

And keep an open mind....your power as a group is in your ability to change and grow with time.

DOUG
Unlike with some plants, bullshit doesn't make us grow.

Evidence, on the other hand, is like Miracle-Gro with us.

[amyweaver29]

With all these.. I remembered my classmate in my Theology class in college when we were discussing the difference between believe and faith.

He makes as an example a chair. By just looking at a chair you can determine that it can hold your weight when you sit on it. That is believe.

When you actually sit on it. That is faith.

Another.. He said that conscience can be likened to a compass. A compass will always point to north. Your conscience will always lead you to what is good and right.

So, whether we close our eyes and let our heart lead us to where we want to go, there is always that strong leading, born out of our faith in God, to the right path.

Truth and facts will come to meet in God's shoes. Wear it.

Regards and God bless,

[Savonarola]

He makes as an example a chair. By just looking at a chair you can determine that it can hold your weight when you sit on it. That is believe.

When you actually sit on it. That is faith.

No it isn't. Faith is belief without evidence. If I make the determination that "it can hold [my] weight when sit on it," then that is a reasoned conclusion based on evidence; my sitting is based on that evidence, thus it cannot be faith.

Another.. He said that conscience can be likened to a compass. A compass will always point to north. Your conscience will always lead you to what is good and right.

Then your friend is an idiot, and I can prove it: If a person's conscience "will always lead you to what is good and right," why do people do things that they know at the time are wrong?

So, whether we close our eyes and let our heart lead us to where we want to go, there is always that strong leading, born out of our faith in God, to the right path.

Yet I can be right without appealing to God. Why add something that is unnecessary to the equation?

Truth and facts will come to meet in God's shoes.

I find truth and facts all the time in places that are much less stinky than inside shoes.

[graybear13]

I agree with you in general...however I don't agree that this has been the general reaction of this group. It's not being a know it all to inform someone that there assertions are categorically incorrect. This forum exist in part to serve as a platform for debate. And yes, debate requires one to state clearly and then defend one's position. I think you may have drawn a little ridicule due to a tendency to just assert things without supporting evidence. I think you are simply trying to "shoot the poop" and others have been a tad confused by this. They generally debate here with the goal of learning something or figuring out how somethings works--they are looking to exchange information and seek input from experts in any given field. The idea is to bring people together from a wide variety of disciplines so that we might, through interaction with these fellows, broaden our understanding of the world around us. They are not here to randomly exchange B.S....and thus they misunderstand your intentions and perhaps come across as hostile.

Kevin

I was sorry to hear that CERN has to eat a little crow on the climate control thing.
I fear that a much bigger plate will be served up when everyone stops saying 'big bang'.
It will be easier to swallow with a little bit of humble pie.

"Ultimatomic Rays. The assembly of energy into the minute spheres of the ultimatons occasions vibrations in the content of space which are disernible and measurable. And long before physicists ever discover the ultimaton, they will undoubtedly detect the phenomena of these rays as they shower in upon earth. These short and powerful rays represent the initial activity of the ultimatons as they slow down to that point where they veer towards the electronic organization of matter. As the ultimatons aggregate into electrons, condensation occurs with a consequent storage of energy."

"When subjected to the heat and pressure of certain internal solar states, all but the most primitive associations of matter may be broken up. Heat can thus largely overcome gravity stability. But no known solar heat or pressure can convert ultimatons back into puissant energy."

"You might try to visualize 35,000,000 degrees of heat, in association with certain gravity pressures, as the electronic boiling point. Under such pressure and at such temperatures all atoms are degraded and broken up into their electronic and other ancestral components; even the electrons and other associations of ultimatons may be broken up, but the suns are not able to degrade the ultimatons.

gray

[Dardedar]

"Ultimatomic Rays. The assembly of energy into the minute spheres of the ultimatons occasions vibrations in the content of space which... [blah blah blah]..."
gray

Another unidentified plagiarized cut and paste from the Urantia book.

At least you put quotes around the horseshit this time.

I was sorry to hear that CERN has to eat a little crow on the climate control thing.

If you would like to learn about that issue, you might begin here at Realclimate.

And here at skepticalscience.

I don't think those science sites reference the Urantia Book. Did your Urantia book forget to mention these issues?

[kwlyon]

This was a long time ago. I have no idea what you are talking about. Did something happen at cern? The only think I can think of that even vaguely connects Cern with climate change would be the recent study showing that cosmic rays can seed cloud formation. I don't see any crow eating going on....it was apparently a well done piece of work as I believe it was published in Nature.

[Dardedar]

Did something happen at cern? I don't see any crow eating going on...

It is currently the favorite climate change denial of the day to twist this finding from CERN to support some nonsense that we aren't warming the earth. It's a variation of long time favorite climate canard #2, "it's the sun." Explained at those links I gave above.

[graybear13]

This was a long time ago. I have no idea what you are talking about. Did something happen at cern? The only think I can think of that even vaguely connects Cern with climate change would be the recent study showing that cosmic rays can seed cloud formation. I don't see any crow eating going on....it was apparently a well done piece of work as I believe it was published in Nature.

Hi kevin,

I was referring to an article in the Arkansas Democrate Gazette by Paul Greenberg wednesday oct.5, 2011 titled "When science isn't". I think it's worth reading if you can find it.

What I took from it was, when science 'herds' up and is influenced by politics to back a certain theory, bad science is the result. In the case of climate change science will just lose some funding and a little credibility which will fuel the sceptics.

When it comes to big bang theory of creation, that was a HUGE sellout to the politics of the Roman Catholic Church. All it took was for some mathematicians getting together and saying "yes the BBT is possible" and the detection of background radiation, interpreted as an echo of the big bang...that's all it took! and boom, bad science.

It turns out that the background radiation is ultimatonic rays..."the electronic organization of matter"... We can hear creation happening.

I found the definition of creation, that I quoted in my last post, in the urantia book a month or so ago. Imagine my surprise when I realized that an experiment that I have been working on for almost 30 years is designed to create a giant electron...the beginning of creation. It sure gave me a lot more confidence that it will actually work.

gray

[Doug]

When it comes to big bang theory of creation, that was a HUGE sellout to the politics of the Roman Catholic Church. All it took was for some mathematicians getting together and saying "yes the BBT is possible" and the detection of background radiation, interpreted as an echo of the big bang...that's all it took! and boom, bad science.

DOUG
Yes, all it took was observation of the recession of the stars, hypothesis that in the past the stars were together, someone showing how it is physically and mathematically possible, and how confirmation of the background radiation that was predicted by the hypothesis was detected. And so on.

Yes, it was just observation, hypothesis, prediction, and confirmation.

All this must look very odd to you, Graybear.

[Dardedar]

...an article in the Arkansas Democrate Gazette by Paul Greenberg wednesday oct.5, 2011 titled "When science isn't".

I have been chatting with two physicists about that article (which I haven't bothered to read, Greenberg is an ass and not one to look to for science, or politics for that matter). He's very slippery and dishonest so I knew what he was up to just from what I heard about the article. Standard climate science denier crapola. Here is some of the background info I have passed along on this:

***
Haven't had time to look at this but... guys, nothing from Greenberg is really associated with science. He is just regurgitating talking points he has seen on denier blogs. This is the favorite of the week. This "blame it on the sun" has been a favorite from the beginning. Even the dumbest teabagger can look to the sky, point to the sun and say "hot." That's why this one has always been number one on skepticalscience.com's list of climate change denier arguments. (Oops, I see it has slipped to number two.

No need to reinvent the wheel here and study Svensmark's paper from way back, unless you want to (I've been knocking that one down for many years). Greenberg comes along with the standard stuff (I haven't read his article yet)... throw the climategate smear, then off to the "cosmic rays" ignoring the fact that our understanding of climate change, like evolution, is supported by a vast matrix of different lines of evidence. Like a creationist, these guys are looking for that silver bullet that will save them from having to consider the broad spectrum of science. They want to find the human footprint in the a dino track, the bunny fossil in the Precambrian. Lot's of luck with that.

I see the folks at realclimate.org are already on this one. See: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... echanisms/

Lot's of links in that article giving background on the state of this issue. There are many more substantive articles I am sure. No serious person should or would ever look to a shameless rightwing hack and rhetorician like Greenberg for anything to do with a science that touches on anything political.

See also:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... s/#more-42

Skepticalscience.com has an excellent (and fresh) article on this:

"Galactic cosmic rays: Backing the wrong horse"
http://skepticalscience.com/GCR-Backing ... horse.html

In the case of climate change science will just lose some funding and a little credibility which will fuel the sceptics.

Not based upon spin and distortion by science deniers like Greenberg and all the rest. You got fooled. But then, you are someone who reads and believes the Urantia book.

big bang... was a HUGE sellout to the politics of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, that's why the science of cosmology went with the Big Bang, it was to appease the Catholic church. Quite the conspiracy really. But you uncovered it!

an experiment that I have been working on for almost 30 years is designed to create a giant electron...the beginning of creation.

Talk about "When science isn't!"

[graybear13]

big bang... was a HUGE sellout to the politics of the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, that's why the science of cosmology went with the Big Bang, it was to appease the Catholic church. Quite the conspiracy really. But you uncovered it!

You're pretty good at politics, especially the mud slinging variety, so I'm surprised that you can't understand the 'follow the money' concept. It was a mutual appeasement between the church and science. The church threw its money, power and influence behind BBT and science said o.k. and closed ranks behind the 'theory'. Science went out on a limb and said BBT is "incontrovertible". To this day anyone who argues against BBT has no credibility with the established authorities of science even though science has nothing but faith that it ever happened...faith given to it by the Pope or should I say payed for by the Pope.

Doug said observation, hypothesis, prediction and confirmation must look very odd to me. What strikes me as odd is how science can't understand how the "electronic organization of matter" holds itself together but it won't reject BBT which holds no answers to this question. It just keeps on throwing more resources at BBT in search of some mystery particle that will confirm their blind faith...not going to happen!

I guess this makes me a heretic to the scientific community. So be it. I have long been a heretic to the church because I reject the hypocrisy of 'their' faith. You know, there is a reason why churches burned heretics at the stake...fear. Science is so afraid of letting go of its sacred cow (BBT) it is blind to the answer that is right in front of its face.

"The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy....when electronically organized energy swings into the whirls of the atomic systems. upon such materialization, these energies fall under the complete grasp of the drawing power of linear gravity. Local or linear gravity becomes fully operative with the appearence of the atomic organization of matter." TUB

E+V'=G=M

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which
the established authorities are wrong" Voltaire

gray

[Savonarola]

You're pretty good at politics, especially the mud slinging variety, so I'm surprised that you can't understand the 'follow the money' concept.

I'm reminded of this comic:

It was a mutual appeasement between the church and science.

Let's pretend that this is true. Does it change the fact that all of the evidence points toward a big bang? or that there is no competing theory that has any scientific support?

What strikes me as odd is how science can't understand how the "electronic organization of matter" holds itself together

Poor graybear. You must have forgotten that this forum has people like physicists and chemists perusing it. We have a very good understanding of electronic interactions, both in individual atoms and in molecules.

... but it won't reject BBT which holds no answers to this question.

BBT also doesn't explain why I like pizza. Should we reject BBT for that, too? Of course not. BBT tries to explain how the universe got to its current state; to fault it for failing to do what it isn't designed to do is a pretty stupid fallacy on your part.

It just keeps on throwing more resources at BBT in search of some mystery particle that will confirm their blind faith...not going to happen!

That's what people said about neutrinos.

I guess this makes me a heretic to the scientific community.

I wouldn't have used the word "heretic." I would have used words that question your sanity and intelligence.

"The ultimaton, the first measurable form of energy...

Energy was being measured hundreds of years ago. You're centuries behind the times.

... when electronically organized

What do you think "electronically organized" means?

[Dardedar]

Yes, that's why the science of cosmology went with the Big Bang, it was to appease the Catholic church.

You don't think it had a wee bit to do with the 14 lines of evidence I told you about back in April?

I'm surprised that you can't understand the 'follow the money' concept.

Please show the payola trail from the Vatican to the cosmologists. Jesus, did I just ask that question?

It was a mutual appeasement between the church and science.

You don't think it had a wee bit to do with the 14 lines of evidence I told you about back in April?
It's all a cover up by the scientists because of the hush money they have gotten from the Catholics?

The church threw its money, power and influence behind BBT and science said o.k. and closed ranks behind the 'theory'.

You don't think it had a wee bit to do with the 14 lines of evidence I told you about back in April?

Science went out on a limb and said BBT is "incontrovertible".

The Big Bang theory is imminently controvertible. If it wasn't controvertible, it wouldn't be science. But it is quite falsifiable, it's just that no one has falsified it or provided a better explanation for why those multiple lines of evidence seem to so consistently support it. People who look to the anonymous religious gibberish in the Urantia book and talk about making giant electrons in their basement, not withstanding.

To this day anyone who argues against BBT has no credibility with the established authorities...

Credibility, is earned. You can argue against the Big Bang theory, but you would need to have something that rises to the level of argument. Snippets from the Urantia book, don't, and that's putting sugar on it.

science has nothing but faith that it ever happened...

Well, except for those 14 lines of evidence I told you about back in April? Where is your evidence for *any* of your claims?

I guess this makes me a heretic to the scientific community.

People who get their science from the Urantia book aren't in any way related to the "scientific community." They certainly don't rise to the level of heretic.

"It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong" Voltaire

Now, for this quote to have any application to you whatsoever, all you need to do is provide some reason for people to think you are "right" and the those that actually know what they are talking about, "are wrong." That's the hard work, and you've done none of it.

D.
---------------
Scientists Baffled By Man's Incredible Ability To Fuck Up Every Time

[graybear13]

... when electronically organized

What do you think "electronically organized" means?

It is 'the' method of creation...not the big bang.

Puissant energy slowing down, swirling and condensing into ultimatons, the first measurable form of energy, as 'in the beginning', and then 100 or so ultimatons swirling and condensing into an electron, the first measurable form of electromagnetism. The organization of ultimatons into electrons creates local gravity and mass which is the accumulation and storage of energy. Then Darrel's 14 lines of evidence grow from this structure into the cosmos. All of the structure that we see and measure grows from this initial organization of puissant energy.

gray

[Savonarola]

What do you think "electronically organized" means?

It is 'the' method of creation...not the big bang.

Well that makes no sense. You can't have something "electronic" without electrons.

But, let's pretend that that's just a semantics issue. (It's not, but we're pretending, which you're really good at doing.) What evidence do we have for "puissant energy," and "ultimatons," and the condensation of ultimatons, and why "100 or so" of them will make an electron?
I'll give you a hint: We have no evidence that the electron is not a fundamental particle.

Oh, and don't forget:
If ultimatons create electrons, and those create gravity, how could neutrons and protons have gravitational fields? Do you have an explanation for how this gravity is created by electrons that is different than our current explanation of gravitons?
Do you realize that concocting these ideas in addition to the 14 lines of evidence simply violates Occam's razor? If we have an explanation that doesn't appeal to additional entities like "puissant energy" and "ultimatons," then why ought we believe that the exist?

I think that the energy it takes to come up with and tout this nonsense would best be classified as pissant energy.

[graybear13]

What do you think "electronically organized" means?

It is 'the' method of creation...not the big bang.

Well that makes no sense. You can't have something "electronic" without electrons.

But, let's pretend that that's just a semantics issue. (It's not, but we're pretending, which you're really good at doing.) What evidence do we have for "puissant energy," and "ultimatons," and the condensation of ultimatons, and why "100 or so" of them will make an electron?
I'll give you a hint: We have no evidence that the electron is not a fundamental particle.

So science pretends that electrons are particles but I am not allowed to pretend they are vortexes of energy.

There is no evidence that the electron is not a vortex.

The rest of the electronic organization story is how the electrons join together and create an atom. I talked about this before, how vortexes would join together and accumulate energy at a central point creating a + charge and a nucleus.

This is the prediction of my experiment...That I can first, create 100 or so small vortexes that will create and feed a larger and more powerful vortex, powerful enough to create its own gravity. Second, join two of these vortexes together creating a shere of intense energy confirming that creation is indeed ultimatons collapsing into electrons.

gray

[Savonarola]

So science pretends that electrons are particles

Science recognizes the wave-particle duality of electrons.

but I am not allowed to pretend they are vortexes of energy.

First, the word would be "vortices."
Second, I clearly cannot stop you from pretending whatever particularly stupid idea you care to pretend is true.

There is no evidence that the electron is not a vortex.

Considering you can't even tell us what a vortex is without changing your mind, your statement is probably technically true. On the other hand, there is no evidence that the electron is not a glognork, either. But you don't believe that an electron is a glognork, so why would you believe that an electron is a vortex instead?
Of course, the point of my earlier statement was to point out not only that there is no reason to believe that the electron is not a fundamental "particle" but also that there is reason to believe that the electron is a fundamental particle.

The rest of the electronic organization story is how the electrons join together and create an atom.

Can you explain how negatively charged electrons can form the protons that we find in atoms? What about how electrons form the neutrons that we find in atoms? You have a fundamental charge issue that cannot be resolved.

I talked about this before, how vortexes would join together and accumulate energy at a central point creating a + charge and a nucleus.

Just because you "talked about" it doesn't mean that you had an explanation that didn't require mental illness to accept as true. Frankly, it seems that you still can't make up your mind. First the vortices create negative charges, then the vortices create positive charges.

This is the prediction of my experiment

What experiment? Have you conducted an experiment? Have you even designed an experiment? Even if you don't have access to the materials and equipment required, how would you propose to execute this experiment?

... powerful enough to create its own gravity.

You still haven't proposed a mechanism for this happening.

join two of these vortexes together creating a shere of intense energy confirming that creation is indeed ultimatons collapsing into electrons.

I can hardly wait until you complete this experiment and share the results.

[Dardedar]

I can hardly wait until you complete this experiment and share the results.

Me too. And I hope it involves proof in the form of pudding, like that other experiment he was going to do.