What about gravity necessitates evolution?
I didn't make the argument that gravity proves evolution, you however made the argument that gravity proves god (God has real world effects which can directly be measured, gravity for an example). Thus I asked what about gravity necessitates a god, you couldn't answer. The answer is, there is nothing inherent to gravity which necessitates a god. At no point did I say gravity necessitates evolution, you however claimed that gravity necessitates god.
What fossils have to do when changes have been observed all the time no fossils needed?
Because evolution is a large timescale dynamic captured by the fossil record. Do you wish to dispute the fossil record?
Hmm... Blip. Hmm...Blip. You think so because God tells you so? Or you have any arguments to put up besides your decision to start imitating Tussah’s sophisticated vocabulary instead of making things clear and simple?
Not at all, you used Descartes demon and I think it's a pointless defense.
Try again:
Infinity includes all centimeters and cubic centimeters and all other possible numbers, including … ok I will skip complication… everything. All your measurements are just particular cases of infinity.
True or false?
Descartes demon
Part of your argument, less you wish to claim ignorance of the English language.
I understand you are just trying to use Tashah’s sophisticated vocabulary in order to bring in vagueness and mystics instead of making things simple and clear, - but you are not referring to Plank’s quantum. Am I correct?
I was referring to infinity. The value used for evaluation particularly for boundary conditions and such. It's well defined.
It is exactly up side down. You are confusing a cause with an effect. Lamb shift was observed. In order to ‘’explain ‘’ and insert the explanation in the model the mathematical abstract of vacuum fluctuations was suggested, as well as the abstract possibility of breaking energy conservation for a moment was. You can use Lamb shift for your mambo jumbo machine. It was observed in an experiment and you know how to cause it using a jumbo mambo machine as a part of your mambo jumbo machine. Think. IBM. Invent. HP.
No. In fact, random vacuum fluctuations explain a great many of measured phenominon including Lamb shifts, zero point energy, etc. They are predicted through quantum mechanics and general relativity. To measure the effects of random vacuum fluctuations took precision experiments, the equipment for which wasn't around in full glory till well after the theory saying these things were possible came out. In fact, at first it was "allowable" but no one said they happened. They are allowed through brief periods of breaking energy conservation, or rather better though of as deriving their energy from the curvature of space. It was said this was allowed, it was said well if this is allowed it will have these affects. When those affects were measured, there was then proof of the dynamic.
Again, you're asking me to choose between believing in you, a man with a obvious agenda and clear bias, or scientists...impartial and experts in fields well unknown by you. Sorry, but you're going to lose that one every time.
The energy exchange between the electron and vacuum has not been caught in any experiment, so it is of no use for you. Accepting that it occurs, THE MORE inserting that as true in another theory makes you a shore minded atheist, a blind believer, a fantast. The energy exchange between the electron and vacuum does not physically exist until you cause/observe it in experiments like your observed Lamb shift.
Zero point energies, Lamb shift have been well measured. Other effects are continually being demonstrated in new experiments including electron-lattice interactions, electron mass renormalization, and high energy experiments in colliders. Continually refined, continually measured, continually scrutinized. Nothing to date has come up which would indicate that random vacuum fluctuations are as you say they are. Rather, all the data seems to say that the scientists have a good understanding of the phenomenon and all affects that it would cause are being measured and confirmed. So again...looks like the scientists win.
‘’energy conservation can most certainly be violated for brief periods of time’’ is exactly where scientists go completely wrong.
Personal opinion backed by nothing but bias and bigotry. Prove it.
Physical laws, observations do not matter for them any more, common sense is abolished, a religion instead is erected. Would you be able to understand what are you saying? This brief period of time would allow us sooner or later to get into it and steal energy from vacuum. Understand? As soon as we have a little gap we always will be working and be successful in squeezing something into it. The common experience tells us if it can happen it will happen and it happens. If there was such a gap in time it would be as huge as brief because both huge and brief are very relative and subjective terms. And if we can squeeze, the Mother Nature would do it with no problem. And the energy would happen to be stolen, and we would observe that and would never come up with the law of conservation in the 1st place. The total inability to draw the line between virtual reality of mathematics and the physical world we live in multiplied by a necessity to represent the virtual world as real in movies and books puts today science in the dark ages.
Nothing but garbage. This is personal opinion and hatred thrown at science and progress. You don't understand fully the dynamics you're trying to rally against and can not come up with a coherent and scientific argument against it. Fail.
It is related to the above. It uses better English and better construction that I could make. Observations it refers to render it to be true.
“Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore.” – Einstein.
This proves what? Math for the sake of math can be confusing. But we're not talking of that, we're talking of measurement. Measurement is beyond pretty math and philosophy, measurement is real.
If theory is valid it is exactly what you use to make experiments. Otherwise you would be an alchemist or an evolutionist. You are an alchemist and not an experimentalist, because you have no rules to follow but make up your own very vague and ambiguous sentences instead of the 4 rules experimentalists has been using for centuries, starting from Newton and finishing by Einstein.
Science hasn't ended with Einstein, it has exploded since then. And all done in proper scientific form. Again, this is what it comes down to. You are a guy with an agenda, you have clear bigotry and bias towards science and progress. You rant and rave about how science is wrong. Science, on the other hand, has measurements (something you have not once presented...I have) and has results, measured. That's reality. You want me to believe your side even though you have offered nothing but semantics, poor philosophy, and unsubstantiated rantings. Einstein is not the end all to science, we have expanded knowledge far beyond what Einstein contributed. You seem sort of the plum pudding sort of fellow; I'm more of the quantum mechanically derived and measured sort of fellow. I'll take what is proven, not the rantings of a man with clear agenda against science.
It is as emotional as it is vague. You are not an experimentalist. Experimentalists have been following well defined rules for ages. You are brushing these rules away with no reason to do so, but you make trees tell the truth, atoms tell the truth, gods tell the truth. If atoms tell the truth you have to make me hear it and it has to be the same truth as you hear and everyone else hears. If atoms say that humans and apes have the same ancestor everyone should be able to hear that so nobody would argue aliens or gods.
I am a published physicist, you are not. You're a guy on the internet with a religious agenda to push and you're pissed off because I say keep religion and science separate. That's all this comes down to. You're pissed because you can't demonstrate your points at all, but you want me to accept them as scientific and I refuse. My atoms tell me quantum mechanics works. BECs test the fundamental laws of quantum mechanics to see if they're true or not. My work in AMO is dominated by quantum effects and well explained by them. The dynamics and the theory match up. Nature always has the truth; we just have to be able to listen to what it has to say. Not rant and rave in closed minded bigotry because someone dared say something you don't like. That gets us nowhere, and humanity doesn't sit still. Stagnation is death.
You either see the deviation of an instrument or not. Things either occur or they don’t. If there is no occurrence why would you be making a theory “proving” the occurrence as ‘’a fact’’?
Measured reality is measured reality and nothing you can say detracts from that. You have no measurement to back up your claims, I have well documented measurement to back up mine. From the Lamb Shift to Evolution, it's measured. We know it happened. We know things have changed. You're arguing stagnation, I'm arguing change. The data supports one of us...care to take a guess which one?
No it's not. I've had enough of your flippant philosophy and mindless rants against science and progress. You've backed up nothing you had to say, you refuse to acknowledge measurement, it's completely pointless.