What is the Root of all evil ?

[graybear13]

[quote="kwlyon] One must concede the possibility that the true nature of the universe cannot be uncovered by that which is a part of it.

Kevin.[/quote]

Hi Kevin,

I concede.

The "true nature of the universe" = the Timeless Truth.
It has always been there and always will be. All we can
do is, know of its existance and try to uncover what we can.

Graybear

[kwlyon]

The "true nature of the universe" = the Timeless Truth.
It has always been there and always will be. All we can
do is, know of its existance and try to uncover what we can.

Graybear

Yes...well...this is where I must POTENTIALLY disagree. It's not that I think you are wrong...it's just that I see no reason to believe you are right. There are a lot of undefined terms here and vague assertions. Timeless truth? I don't know anything about it except that you assert that, whatever it is, it has always been here and always will be. If there is a "Timeless truth", by which I assume you mean some sort of creator, I am not so sure we can know of it. As for uncovering what we can about everything else...I'm for it!

Kevin

[Dardedar]

Oh...and I don't know that you have earned the status of Kook just yet Grey...

DAR
If saying gravity is a push force rather than a pull (based upon unbaked misunderstandings of Newtonian physics) doesn't trip the "kook" feature on your measuring device, consider adjusting the gain on that thing a wee bit eh?

[Dardedar]

How can a scientist undertake an experiment
without having some measure of faith...

DAR
Faith can be defined so broadly as to mean "anything believed." I wasn't using it in that sense. I was using it in the first and most common sense. You are using #4, I am using #1.

D.
------------------------
faith n.
1. unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence
2. unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.
3 a religion or a system of religious beliefs
4 anything believed
5. complete trust, confidence, or reliance. --on faith through trust; without proof or evidence.
-- Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition

[Savonarola]

You could say that the bible is a fact (its existence), but not
necessarily true...but I'm not sure if this is a legal difference.

So the difference between "Flat-Earthism exists" and "Flat-Earthism is correct" is insignificant to you? Rather than try to make your point using awkward wording as a crutch, make a real point that can be supported with clear language. That the Bible exists is a fact. That the contents of the Bible are true is not a fact.

Arithmetic says that, If one man could shear a sheep
in ten minutes, ten men could shear it in one minute.
That is sound mathematics, but it is not true...

It is sound mathematics because the ratios are equal. That a mathematical model is not entirely representative of reality does not mean that the math isn't correct.

How can a scientist undertake an experiment
without having some measure of faith that it will
shed some light on the Truth

Faith by definition lacks sufficient reason. As a scientist, I perform experimentation based on some measure of reason that the experimentation will be productive. Proceeding with an experiment despite uncertainty is not the same as experimenting based on faith of learning truth (or Truth).

[graybear13]

The "true nature of the universe" = the Timeless Truth.
It has always been there and always will be. All we can
do is, know of its existance and try to uncover what we can.

Graybear

If there is a "Timeless truth", by which I assume you mean some sort of creator, I am not so sure we can know of it. As for uncovering what we can about everything else...I'm for it!

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

I do not mean some kind of god, creator or knowledge of how it
all began. I agree with you that those things are unknowable.

There is a lot of truth within our grasp to understand and just because
we can't understand it yet doesn't mean it isn't there.

Graybear

[kwlyon]

Oh...and I don't know that you have earned the status of Kook just yet Grey...

DAR
If saying gravity is a push force rather than a pull (based upon unbaked misunderstandings of Newtonian physics) doesn't trip the "kook" feature on your measuring device, consider adjusting the gain on that thing a wee bit eh?

Darrel,

I don't think this makes him a Kook by any stretch of the imagination. I think this makes him about on par with the rest of our society in terms of his understanding of science. If you think this level of misunderstanding makes one a kook, well buddy...I hate to tell you something, but I'm sure you are aware anyways, you are SURROUNDED by kooks! The average Joe on the street is carrying around some rather bizarre ideas regarding the nature of the physical world. People just don't understand science...in large part because our science education (K-12) is not anywhere near up to par. My current employment has brought me face to face with this fact and I must say things are worse than I have originally thought. They do not understand the nature of science in general and they sure as hell do not understand basic physics. With regards to science education in our country we have epically failed an entire generation....fruit fly research....I kid you not....need I say more?

Kevin

[Dardedar]

I credit my pussy cat, perhaps incorrectly, with understanding a little bit about gravity. She is regularly doing science experiments where she goes up on a counter and pushes things off, knowing full well where they are going because she watches them fall. She is a scientist and she has replicated this experiment many times. She probably doesn't know that they fall because of the earth's great mass, and that this mass exerts a pulling force upon the item. She doesn't know about Newton. But she's a pussy cat, and not a very bright one even by pussy cat standards.

Graybear asserts that gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force. That makes him a person with a novel and eccentric idea. The fact that he doesn't know how to begin to back it up, and then holds to it in spite of the explanations of those who do know about such things, means he doesn't just fall to the category you speak of (Americans ignorant of basic science) it means, according to my kook-meter, he is a kook.

D.

[Doug]

If saying gravity is a push force rather than a pull (based upon unbaked misunderstandings of Newtonian physics) doesn't trip the "kook" feature on your measuring device, consider adjusting the gain on that thing a wee bit eh?

DOUG
Gravity is not a repulsive force, but many cosmologists think that dark matter has a repulsive force.

The unique characteristic of dark energy known to us is that it possesses repulsive gravitational force. That is, unlike the gravity we know on Earth, this force tends to distance stars, galaxies and the rest of the structures of the Universe from each other. This would explain why the expansion of the Universe is not constant, but accelerated.

Here.

This has been a hypothesis in cosmology for years now.

[graybear13]

DAR
If saying gravity is a push force rather than a pull (based upon unbaked misunderstandings of Newtonian physics) doesn't trip the "kook" feature on your measuring device, consider adjusting the gain on that thing a wee bit eh?

I Think iT is kind of childish To resorT To name calling,
buT whaT The heck I've been called worse names.

If you Think ThaT whaT I have said so far is kooky waiT
'Till you hear The resT of The sTory. IT will probably
make you lose your sense of humor.

The kook (wiTh a capiTal "T")

[kwlyon]

Graybear asserts that gravity is a pushing force, not a pulling force. That makes him a person with a novel and eccentric idea. The fact that he doesn't know how to begin to back it up, and then holds to it in spite of the explanations of those who do know about such things, means he doesn't just fall to the category you speak of (Americans ignorant of basic science) it means, according to my kook-meter, he is a kook.

D.

Darrel,

I am not going to take up the cause of defending Gray here...if anything my cause would be to educate to the best of my ability. However I do believe that you may lack a physicist's perspective on the scientific illiterate. What happens, you see, is that relatively scientifically illiterate individuals listen to someone like myself speak with regards to issues of gravitation. We speak of the fact that gravity is not really a force at all but rather a sort of pseudo force kinda like the coriolis effect. We would say that the Earth is not pulling you down towards it. It is, in fact, accelerating you away from your uniform straight line motion through space time which is being distorted in the vicinity of the Earth. The surface of the earth is pushing on you....they hear us discuss these things amongst ourselves, often in very sloppy English, and without a very sophisticated understanding of forces, relativity and the like, they understandably get confused. Without bringing in such complicated ideas as relativity and gravitation, mechanics alone is difficult for most to digest. Even classical mechanics is quite often counter intuitive. As I stated, we live in an Aristotelian world.

I just wish people would start trusting and listening to those of us that dedicate our lives to understanding these things. I don't claim to know everything about how to rebuild a Saturn Sudan. I would not argue with my mechanic about such things...But it does seem that he is all too willing to argue with me about physics....strange really. I guess what I am getting at is we should be careful about throwing around words like Kook gratuitously. Arrogant....Ignorant.....Spectacularly incorrect....These may fit....but not Kook. Trust me...every barber in the world knows all there is to know about physics and mechanics...for the price of a trim they will tell you how the oil industry is behind a conspiracy to suppress technology that could run your car indefinitely from harnessing electricity from the rotating wheels....You can't convince him he is incorrect...even when I get my Ph.d. he will still believe he knows more than me....I don't think they are Kooks...I don't know what the hell is wrong with them...I am, however, thinking about purchasing a flowbee....

Kevin

[Dardedar]

Arrogant....Ignorant.....Spectacularly incorrect....These may fit....but not Kook.

DAR
Let the record show that SAV said "kook" first, Graybear said it second, and I was simply agreeing with both of them.

D.
----------------------
kook
–noun Slang.
1. an eccentric, strange, or foolish person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kook

[Savonarola]

I guess what I am getting at is we should be careful about throwing around words like Kook gratuitously. Arrogant....Ignorant.....Spectacularly incorrect....These may fit....but not Kook.

kook
–noun Slang.
1. an eccentric, strange, or foolish person.

I'm pretty sure kook fits, too. It truly is foolish for a barber to tell a Ph.D. in physics that the barber understands physics better. It truly is strange to spend 25 years tweaking a postulation about vortices that is so contrary to reality that it is refuted in a single post. And it's quite eccentric to be insisting upon "timeless truths" and then arguing that we should accept his insistence because he thinks we should trust him.

While there is some value to playing nice, it's not what it's cracked up to be. Just call it as it is and get it over with.

[kwlyon]

Arrogant....Ignorant.....Spectacularly incorrect....These may fit....but not Kook.

DAR
Let the record show that SAV said "kook" first, Graybear said it second, and I was simply agreeing with both of them.

D.

Yes well...you are free to do so...I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I am just waiting for more data so to speak. I usually reserve kook for the likes of the Hovinds:) Then there is MoMo the magic maniac man...otherwise known as Moses...he is in a class all by himself...wouldn't want to insult the kooks of the world by implying he may be one of them.

Kevin

[kwlyon]

While there is some value to playing nice, it's not what it's cracked up to be. Just call it as it is and get it over with.

Yup...everyone to their own. I must admit I tend to waist a lot of time on lost causes...remember Ralph Rene...right. I do, however, take exception to the eccentric part:)...That's a little close to home for me.

Kevin

[graybear13]

WOW!!!! That many names.


Spectacularly Incorrect, Arrogant, Ignorant, uneducated, Fool, Stupid, Dumb, Idiot, Eccentric, Strange, Unintelligent, Pointless, Kook.



My name is legion. Hell, I might be the devil himself.


The concept of "Good" IS the root of all concepts of "Evil"

I guess "Good" is not all it's cracked up to be.

[kwlyon]

WOW!!!! That many names.


Spectacularly Incorrect, Arrogant, Ignorant.......

Well, you have asserted that we do not understand basic mechanics and gravitation which is Spectacularly Incorrect. We understand very little about the universe we find ourselves in...however these topics we have quite a solid grasp on. So I stand by Spectacularly Incorrect.

Ignorant applies to all of us...I wasn't trying to be mean. Quite the contrary. As I have pointed out I am ridiculously ignorant regarding how to rebuild my Saturn. We are all ignorant of most things that are not the focus of our day to day lives. HUMANITY AS A WHOLE remains ignorant of most things. There really should not be a negative connotation to the word ignorant...the reason there is leads us to the last one...

Arrogant, the belief that one is not ignorant...of anything. You did show up on a board full of scientist and make some rather odd claims...however I am not sure you were aware of this...I think you were likely "shooting the shit" so to speak. My private discussion with you did not lead me to believe you were arrogant...At least not any more than the average. I would rather talk with you regarding physics than my barber...those flowbee's are expensive....I guess I am stuck with him. Thus in fairness I retract arrogant for the time being.

Kevin

[graybear13]

Hi Kevin,

I am sorry if I gave the impresssion that science does not "understand basic mechanics" including analysis of the action of gravitational forces on matter. I have a lot of respect for what science has done for mankind. It really has been impressive but, no reason to get on a big ego trip. All I was trying to say was, science doesn't know what gravity is, and gravity is a push not a pull. I will not attemt to "shoot the shit" on the science forum anymore. I'm sure this will make everyone happy, me included

When it comes to arrogance, that one did hurt more than any of the others. I really have nothing to be arrogant about. I am a very simple man. I was just being an advocate for my thoughts on gravity. They seem logical to me on the QM side. I have no knowledge or understanding of gravity an the GR side except what you wrote in a post a couple of days ago.

The notion that there is such a thing as timeless truth caused a reaction that surprised me...maybe it was more of a reaction to me and some notion that I was saying I "know some truth that you don't." Wrong! What I'm saying is,It's there. It's like a shining light coming down on a mountain side.

My dream has long been to be able to buy a nice place with a field so I can go stand in the middle of it.

[kwlyon]

Hi Kevin,

I am sorry if I gave the impresssion that science does not "understand basic mechanics" including analysis of the action of gravitational forces on matter. .......

All I was trying to say was, science doesn't know what gravity is, and gravity is a push not a pull.

Grey,

I don't know what impression you gave. I was not around for the majority of the discussion. I was not necessarily referring to you...I come upon arrogance and spectacularly incorrect assertions very often in general. People just don't have a clue what we do and do not know about the universe. I was mostly just trying to make the argument that it is best to call people out for being ignorant or arrogant or intentionally obtuse...whatever...just don't use the word kook unless they really deserve it. Kook is such a useful and descriptive word and I would hate for it to loose its value and connotation. Sometimes it is the right word you see...like Ray comfort...he is a...well..he is a con-artist, however Kent Hovind is a kook. Kook is something you have to earn...it's kinda like a badge of honor only with opposing charge and spin.

You are almost correct in asserting that we do not understand the ORIGIN of gravity. Well, to be a little more precise, we DO understand the origin of gravity quite well...what we don't have such a handle on is the origin of that state of energy we call mass that gives rise to gravitation. The origin of electric charge is also quite an enigma for that matter. I would very much like to understand, or at the very least mathematically justify, how two photons consisting of self inducing electromagnetic waves extending out orthogonal to their direction of propagation traveling C can somehow drop out of warp, as it were, and coalesce into a particle and antiparticle pair having mass and static, radially emanating electric fields. I do not understand this process at all...I don't think anyone does at present. What we do have are very comprehensive theories explaining the behavior of said phenomenon once these masses and charges exist.

You lose me, however, with the assertion that gravity is a push rather than a pull....what do you mean by this exactly? I would assert that, though it is useful to model gravitation as a "force" of nature, in reality it is not a force at all. It is a warping of space imposed on the surroundings by the presence of mass. This becomes evident when one realizes that an individual "accelerating" in a gravitational field feels no forces acting on him/her....well not until tidal forces come into play but these arise from internal ELECTROSTATIC FORCES.

This relativistic model of gravitation has undergone intense scrutiny for many years now. It has made ridiculous predictions that, without fail, turn out to hold true for repeated observations. In fact, in all this time, not a single observation has ever been made that contradicts GR. That is one hell of an impressive track record. I would say that only Quantum Theory can top it and then only because it has found more industrial application.

None the less, explain to me your theory of gravity if you would like and I will give you my honest assessment as to its viability. This is what we call "shooting the shit" and there is nothing wrong with it. It is a good way to learn about things. Just make sure it is clear that is your intent. I promise to criticize your ideas...and not your personage.

-Kevin

[Dardedar]

I was not around for the majority of the discussion.

DAR
Check out this, first post (I think) from GrayB.