Zosimus
Active Member
Your answer makes no sense. It doesn't address my primary point. Black holes don't exist. Who cares whether light has mass?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- creation string theory
Zosimus
Active Member
Speculation.
We've already established that this number is 0. Since nucleotides such as these do not occur outside of living cells, the exercise is purely hypothetical.
Zero. Again, since the basic building blocks of the combination do not occur in nature (outside of living systems), zero molecules will have the opportunity to combine given as many billions of years as you want.
Not required. Everyone should be able to work out that with 246 nucleobases and assuming that if one falls into place then it's pair will automatically take its place that the answer is approximately equal to 4^122 as if the first 122 fall into place correctly, the remaining base pair will also fall into place correctly as there will be no possibility for putting the wrong base pair in. Unless you know the exact chemical structure of the smallest known viroid, we cannot do better than this kind of an estimation.
Zosimus
Active Member
Black holes, if they existed, would create Hawking radiation.
Experiments such as the one described here have confirmed that Hawking radiation is not a myth and should be created by any black hole.
No suspected black hole has ever been found to create this Hawking radiation.
Therefore, black holes do not exist.
Q.E.D.
Until there is falsification of GR then it is reconcilable with QM.
Of course!
But that's what we're all doing here, since the variables & parameters are very much unknown.
To quantify things when so much is unknown is folly.
It would be like trying to find a meaningful number for the Drake Equation.
You've claimed it, but that is far from its being "established".
We don't know what possible paths & steps there are to going from inanimate to self-replicating to becoming a living thing.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, or I misunderstand you, but the number is objectively not zero.
This is demonstrated by many experiments on possible building blocks of life creation from naturally occurring processes.
An example.....
http://www.space.com/32503-artificial-comet-creates-life-building-blocks.html
Such chemical reactions must be accounted for in any probability calculation.
Of course you not required to show your work.
But to proffer a number without showing how you arrived at it doesn't allow the opportunity to examine the cromulence of your analysis.
Essentially, your answer appears to just pop out of a black box.
Even presuming your premises, It seems that you assume a single trial.
This would give the wrong answer.
And analogous question.......
What are the odds that I can flip a coin 20 times in a row, & have it come up heads each time?
Lack of detection of Hawking radiation is primarily a detection problem.
It is vanishingly small, & the electromagnetic noise of matter falling into
a black hole makes detection a very difficult problem to solve.
So one cannot say that it doesn't exist simply because it hasn't been seen.
Zosimus
Active Member
If GR is correct then quasars will show time dilation effects.
Quasars do not show time dilation effects.
Therefore, GR is not correct.
Q.E.D.
Zosimus
Active Member
Your argument is specious. Your argument can be likened to someone who says that a house can construct itself given enough time.
I object by saying that nails have never been observed to spontaneously occur in nature.
You retort, "Ahh, but wood does spontaneously occur."
This is an answer that is apropos of nothing.
As for flipping coins, approximately 1 chance in 1,048,576. So what?
Here's your challenge. You're taking the GMAT test. You are behind on time, and need to solve every problem in about 30-40 seconds. Here's your problem:
Each unit in a 5-unit condominium is occupied by a married couple. The HOA needs to elect a three-person board of directors. HOA rules prohibit spouses from serving together on the board. How many possible combinations are there? Do not show your work rather show a simple method whereby any student could do this calculation without paper and pencil and come to the right answer in about 30 seconds.
Zosimus
Active Member
Oh really? People around here say that about God all the time!
I asked because it's common for people to quickly calculate an answer based upon insufficient info.
Given numbers, many are too quick to just start cipher'n (without analyze'n). And when they find a
numerical answer, they think the fact that they employed math makes it right. But as they say,
"garbage in ...garbage out".
So one must be careful to analyze how to solve a problem before crunching numbers.
In problem I posed, I never stated I flipped only 20 times.
You should've first asked.....
- How many trials are there?
- Are the trials sequential or continuous (eg, 21 flips is 2 trials, 22 flips is 3 trials)?
This illustrates the major problem calculating the probability of abiogenesis,
ie, simplifying assumptions & lack of information can make one's answer off
by a great many orders of magnitude.
Hey, now whose argument looks "specious", bub?
To those who read the above post earlier, it has changed.
Doncha hate it when you re-read a post, & find errors & inadequate explanation?
So I gotta fix things when I can.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
There are all kinds of trendy explanations that run though the scientific community.
Finding one that reinforces our personal assumptions about the nature of existence may help us feel validated in our beliefs - but it does little else.
Finding one that reinforces our personal assumptions about the nature of existence may help us feel validated in our beliefs - but it does little else.
I thought of the same analogy.
But no one I've yet seen has claimed.....
God has not been detected.
Therefore God's existence is disproven.
Btw, your use of "QED" at the end of your argument is non-standard.
"QED" traditionally means that you'd proven an initially stated proposition.
But you never stated one in your post #188 argument.
If one is going to put on airs by using a fancy Latin initialism, one had better be right.
There are many pedants here who will pounce upon errors.
Yeah, I don't think so.
Quasars actually confirm GR predictions.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quasar-Confirms-General-Relativity-Prediction-83596.shtml
Zosimus
Active Member
Your answer is wrong. You asked me what the probability was that you could flip a coin and have it come up heads 20 times in a row. The answer I gave is correct. Your extended reasoning that you might flip 21 or 22 times does not change the underlying probability. Certainly if you flip a coin 1 million times you have a much better shot at hitting that 1 in 1,048,576 chance., but that does not change the underlying odds!
As for your criticism of my previous calculations, I specifically and explicitly put down my starting assumptions and made the calculation off of those. I suppose what you are trying to say is that if you let the perfectly-designed pool of nucleotides sit for awhile that it might have multiple chances to self-assemble and thus might overcome the overwhelming odds... eventually.
In reality, what would happen is that the nucleotides would break down, and the chance would be lost.
Zosimus
Active Member
First of all, I've seen plenty of people here making argument from ignorance logical fallacies such as the one you posted above.
Second, your opinion about Q.E.D. may be true in terms of proofs of mathematical theorems. However, in logical proofs, one typically places the premises first, and the conclusion at the end after a language clue such as therefore, hence, thus, etc. Q.E.D. in this case simply means that the proof has concluded so that people do not confuse any follow-up statements that may simply be matters of opinion as claims of something proved.
Finally, since the only person complaing about the use of Q.E.D. is you, I suppose I should conclude that you are the pendant in question but that you lack the courage to say it openly. Perhaps this is because your own posts are riddled with errors. A pendant might, for example, complain about the lack of a comma after the word therefore, the irregular capitalization of BTW, the confusion between you'd and you've, the misuse of the word proven, or the sentence that you started with the word but. Perhaps it's best that you kept quiet about the matter.
Zosimus
Active Member
What is this – a blog? No, wait... it's a software encyclopedia. That sounds like a great source.
I didn't read far into the article (if we can call it that). I got bogged down in the phrase "...have the ability of severely warping..."
Black holes don't have abilities. The correct idiom is always abililty to–never ability of. The word can is both more accurate and less wordy. That's why I thought it was a blog.
Way to miss the point along with missing previous points about why light coincides with both theories of qm and gr, which would explain why your quasar article is misleading. Not to mention the astronomer n your article had several other ideas other than getting rid of black holes and expanding space.
Zosimus
Active Member
No, I think the base problem is that you think confirmations matter.
Let me explain this to you very carefully. Confirmations don't matter. We could sit down right now and come up with dozens of confirmations of known-wrong theories such as the Ptolamic model of the solar system. This model is completely wrong.
We could sit down and come up with hundreds of confirmations for Newton's Universal Law of Gravity. Again, this model is completely wrong.
How do we know these models are wrong? Because they have failures. Newton's Law cannot explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. So all those centuries of confirmations mean nothing because the law cannot predict everything. It cannot predict gravitational lensing either.
As for the astronomer in my article, at least my article features an astronomer! Gabriel Gache seems to spend a lot of time writing about how marijuana might help colon cancer patients. Great!
Nothing you have posted has said anything about why highly-redshifted quasars do not show time dilation, as predicted by GR.
While you're at it, perhaps you could explain why super-sensitive tests for dark matter do not detect it.
You don't have to explain to be how evidence works and how theories get debunked. Problem is GR has yet to be debunked and your article certainly didn't do that when the article had several explanation and you just chose the one you liked.