Theory of Everything

[TagliatelliMonster]

And then you state that *gaseous elements* have no significant importance!?

Did you miss this part of the sentence:

The gasses in the air are irrelevant except as an addtional *frictional* force.

How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights when the *gaseous compositions* are removed - and differently when the same objects are falling down from a heigth in the free nature?

Is this really a serious question?

"How do you hit your children?"
=> the equivalent of your silly question.

The answer is: gravity doesn't "know". It just attracts. And atmosphere provides friction, slowing down a fall. It's how parachutes work (not in a vacuum though).

Get to the logical buttom of this question before demanding anything more from me.

By "logical bottom", do you mean exposing the fallacy of the silly loaded nature of the question?

 

[Native]

You make no sense.

That ancient cultures deified things like the sun, moon, stars and wind is expected from primitive cultures that have no clue what those things really are.

You´re not spending much time as as daily and nocturnal Sky Watcher, are you? Can you even see any night Sky where you live?

Maybe you´ve lost your own primitivity, hence you state ancient cultures to be primitive?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I´ll say pretty much the opposite, if materialism where true we wouldn’t expect to have a nice and elegant “theory of everything”

Why?

…. If naturalism is true ¿why would realty be explainable with math and equations?

Why wouldn't it, considering math is something we invented to do exactly that?
Back when Newton was trying to work out orbital paths, there was no math available to describe such. So he went on and invented calculus - a way of describing such.

Math isn't found under a rock, you know.
It is an invention by humans, invented specifically to describe things in reality.

As a theist I would predict that fundamentally reality is simple, elegant and explainable with math and equations

Why?
How does that necessarily follow?

Atheists should predict the opposite

Why?
How does that necessarily follow?


It seems to me that you are just inventing "predictions" post-hoc just to stack it in your favor. Kind of like trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow. For no particular reason, moreover.

[qutoe]
, reality should de messy chaotic and hard (if not impossible)to describe with math.[/quote]

Why? Because you say so? Because that way, you get to make this "argument"?

I´ll simply make some popcorn, enjoy the show, and see who made the correct prediction.

There is no prediction here.
You're just making empty claims again.

 

[Native]

I said
How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights when the *gaseous compositions* are removed - and differently when the same objects are falling down from a heigth in the free nature?

Is this really a serious question?

It would be for you too if you were able to analyse the logical implications.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As my native tongue is Danish, it ALWAYS crosses my mind. Perhaps you didn´t take your time to ponder over the context?

I couldn't make heads or tails of it.
If you don't care to rephrase in an attempt to make it more understandable / sensible, then let's just let it go instead of holding this peeing contest.

 

[Native]

Back when Newton was trying to work out orbital paths, there was no math available to describe such. So he went on and invented calculus - a way of describing such.

All Newton did, was to put his maths to already known planetary velocity motions onto equations, assuming his *apple-pie two object force* to work far out in space at distances - even without being able to explain the nature of his *force*.

Newton´s correct planetary calculations lead later scientists to believe that *Newtons occult Gravity* was an Universal Force and when his *celestial law of motion* was contradicted by the galactic rotation curve, the Newtonian followers were forced to invent yet another unexplained force, called *dark matter*. An invented concept which now has spread out in the entire Universe.

 

[Native]

couldn't make heads or tails of it.
If you don't care to rephrase in an attempt to make it more understandable / sensible, then let's just let it go instead of holding this peeing contest.

If it make you happy, then just copy-paste the post you´re having troubles with, and I´ll try spelling it word for word and sentense for sentenses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You´re not spending much time as as daily and nocturnal Sky Wacther, are you?

I tend to look up whenever there is something to see. Why does that matter?

Can you even see any night Sky where you live?

Yes. Why?

Maybe you´ve lost your own primitivity, hence you state ancient cultures to be primitive?

It is a given that ancient cultures were primitive in context of scientific knowledge concerning what the sun, and by extension the stars, etc really are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said
How does your *gravity* know to work equently on two different weights when the *gaseous compositions* are removed - and differently when the same objects are falling down from a heigth in the free nature?

It would be for you too if you were able to analyse the logical implications.

Your question is senseless.
Gravity doesn't know anything. It exerts the exact same force on objects in a room, whether that room is a vacuum or not.

The only difference in the acceleration of the fall of the objects as a result of the gravitational pull, is whether that fall is slowed down by friction or not.


How can you not know this..............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All Newton did, was to put his maths to already known planetary velocity motions onto equations, assuming his *apple-pie two object force* to work far out in space at distances - even without being able to explain the nature of his *force*.

Newton´s correct planetary calculations lead later scientists to believe that *Newtons occult Gravity* was an Universal Force and when his *celestial law of motion* was contradicted by the galactic rotation curve, the Newtonian followers were forced to invent yet another unexplained force, called *dark matter*. An invented concept which now has spread out in the entire Universe.

Said the armchair "scientist".

Can you do something else besides offering baseless critic that is neither here nore there?
Why aren't you on the cover of every scientific magazine for solving the hard questions of physics that have plagued physicists all over the world for decades?

Why must you "make your case" over here in "religious forums"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If it make you happy, then just copy-paste the post you´re having troubles with, and I´ll try spelling it word for word and sentense for sentenses.

And the peeing contest continues.

I already pointed out the post. It's the one I initially replied to.

 

[Native]

It is a given that ancient cultures were primitive in context of scientific knowledge concerning what the sun, and by extension the stars, etc really are.

Just think what you like. I´ve no intentions wasting my time *peeing out* anything against cultural ignorants.

 

[Native]

Can you do something else besides offering baseless critic that is neither here nore there?
Why aren't you on the cover of every scientific magazine for solving the hard questions of physics that have plagued physicists all over the world for decades?

Going after the messenger instead of dealing with the messenger´s contexts, are you?

 

[PureX]

If naturalism is true ¿why would realty be explainable with math and equations?

It isn't. That's the point.

 

[Polymath257]

You´re not spending much time as as daily and nocturnal Sky Wacther, are you? Can you even see any night Sky where you live?

Maybe you´ve lost your own primitivity, hence you state ancient cultures to be primitive?

I've been an amateur astronomer for decades. So, yes, I am very familiar with the night sky (at least in the Northern Hemisphere).

Light pollution is definitely a problem, making it so some phenomena that were common in the recent past are rare now (like being able to see the Milky Way in the sky). But being at a good, dark site is amazing.

So, I will state that primitive cultures were often surprisingly advanced. But they did not have telescopes and so were limited to eyes-only viewing. And that meant that they simply didn't have access to a LOT of information.

And that means their ideas about the nature of the cosmos were badly wrong. Uniformly across the board wrong.

 

[leroy]

Why?



Why wouldn't it, considering math is something we invented to do exactly that?
Back when Newton was trying to work out orbital paths, there was no math available to describe such. So he went on and invented calculus - a way of describing such.

Math isn't found under a rock, you know.
It is an invention by humans, invented specifically to describe things in reality.



Why?
How does that necessarily follow?




Why?
How does that necessarily follow?


It seems to me that you are just inventing "predictions" post-hoc just to stack it in your favor. Kind of like trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow. For no particular reason, moreover.

[qutoe]
, reality should de messy chaotic and hard (if not impossible)to describe with math.

Why? Because you say so? Because that way, you get to make this "argument"?



There is no prediction here.
You're just making empty claims again.[/QUOTE]

The mathematical possibilities are potentially infinite, and only a small percentage of combinations would be “elegant”…….. why would nature care about creating a universe that can be explained with “elegant equations”?

But in any case, this is a good time to make predictions since we don’t have theory of everything yet…….. So under your view what kind of result would count as evidence for naturalism and what kind of result would count as evidence against?

Or is it another example of “it doesn’t matter what we find, it will always count as evidence for naturalism and I will still be a naturalist no matter what “

 

[Native]

So, I will state that primitive cultures § 1) were often surprisingly advanced. But they did not have telescopes and so were limited to eyes-only viewing. And that meant that § 2) simply didn't have access to a LOT of information.

AD §1)
I take it you by *surprisingly advanced* mean *structual temples and astronomical observational buildings* at large?
AD § 2)
A) I assume you have knowledge of how our brains works via chemical electromagnetic impulses?
B) I also assume that you are aware of the infinite range of E&M?
C) And then you claim our ancestors didn´t have access to a *lot of information*?

Only *gravitational thinkers* can miss the obvious and logical connection as they don´t imply intuitive skills.

Definition of Intuition:
"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning".
-----
Google seach for *Einstein on Intuition*.
The first result is:
"Einstein is widely quoted as saying, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant." ... "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge,".
----------
And then he sadly lost his logical intuition to maths and equations - as lots of his followers.

And that means their ideas about the nature of the cosmos were badly wrong. Uniformly across the board wrong.

I just let this stand for itself.

 

[Polymath257]

AD §1)
I take it you by *surprisingly advanced* mean *structual temples and astronomical observational buildings* at large?

Not just. Some of their specific observations are quite detailed.

AD § 2)
A) I assume you have knowledge of how our brains works via chemical electromagnetic impulses?

Yes. Probably in more detail than you ever will.

B) I also assume that you are aware of the infinite range of E&M?

yes. Are you aware that positive and negative cancel?

C) And then you claim our ancestors didn´t have access to a *lot of information*?

Yes.

Only *gravitational thinkers* can miss the obvious and logical connection as they don´t imply intuitive skills.

Definition of Intuition:
"Intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning.
Different fields use the word "intuition" in very different ways, including but not limited to: direct access to unconscious knowledge; unconscious cognition; inner sensing; inner insight to unconscious pattern-recognition; and the ability to understand something instinctively, without any need for conscious reasoning".
-----
Google seach for *Einstein on Intuition*.
The first result is:
"Einstein is widely quoted as saying, "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant." ... "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge,".
----------
And then he sadly lost his logical intuition to maths and equations - as lots of his followers.

Einstein generally had very good intuition. Even when he was wrong, he was wrong for interesting reasons.

I just let this stand for itself.

And I stand by it.

 

[Native]

Not just. Some of their specific observations are quite detailed.

Sure they were indeed.

AD § 2)
A) I assume you have knowledge of how our brains works via chemical electromagnetic impulses?

Yes. Probably in more detail than you ever will.

So you´ve intuitively read my brain now ?

I said:
B) I also assume that you are aware of the infinite range of E&M?

yes. Are you aware that positive and negative cancel?

UPS! You just short-circuited and cancelled out your skills of making logical connections.

If so, how on Earth can a diversity of telescopes recieve electromagnetic impulses from the assumed 13.8 bill. years distances?

I just let this stand for itself

 

[Polymath257]

Sure they were indeed.

AD § 2)
A) I assume you have knowledge of how our brains works via chemical electromagnetic impulses?

So you´ve intuitively read my brain now ?

No. I base the claim on what you have written in this forum.

I said:
B) I also assume that you are aware of the infinite range of E&M?

UPS! You just short-circuited and cancelled out your skills of making logical connections.

If so, how on Earth can a diversity of telescopes recieve electromagnetic impulses from the assumed 13.8 bill. years distances?

I just let this stand for itself

Do you really think that ancient cultures were able to detect light (E&M waves) from across even our galaxy?

They were limited to what they could see with their eyes with no telescopic enhancement. With only eyes, it is only possible to see a *very* small part of our galaxy. Certainly not the core of it. To do that takes a pretty high quality telescope.