"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I want to know what you think is the best case experiment and observation for your argument. Would this be it? Do you consider EPR the best support for your argument?

it is certainly a very good one. Care to take it on?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Which particular theorems?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93...

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a real world application of 3-axis rotation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Take one of those into a weightless environment and you'll have a nice 3-axis rotating "singularity" :)
Rotation around any axes can be detected with 3-axis gyroscopes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

You have changed your thesis ,and I suspect it will change
every time you are called on them.

The thing is I have asked you for your supportive evidence several time, to which you reply that the evidence supports your claim . Though you never have supplied any evidence and have morphed your rotational universe now into a 3 axis universe compounding the problem rather than solving it.
You cannot show evidence the universe has a single axis much less three, which is impossible. Because the force of one axis would cancel out all others.

Also the wobble in Earths rotation does not add a additional axis
it only defines Earths imbalance to it's axis. You unless you can provide some evidence are not worth any further discussion.
I suspect your "Pet Hypothesis" will morph even further as long as anyone plays your game. But you have produced nothing but garbage supported by "your word" which means nothing anymore.

Produce some evidence or please STFU! I beginning to think you will advance just for a entertaining argument , but you are not entertaining. You really should look into being a science fiction writer though, perhaps you will forever miss that calling.

polymath257 wrote:

it is certainly a very good one. Care to take it on?

Sure. Let's destroy it. Let's do this in macro world so you will see how the macro laws work identically to the micro (quantum).

We prepare a setup in space. You control a button and I get to choose initial spin:

1. A button in your hand uses an radio signal to cause some C4 to explode
2. You have prepared this C4 so that you have put two massive DVD-rom like metal disks together and the C4 is in between them causing them to depart on explosion
3. My job is to put this combination to spin before you press the button
4. I can choose either of the two directions of spin and are not to tell you which direction I chose
5. The setup is such that you don't see either spin until you go close to one of these discs to detect the spin

We start repeating this experiment over and over again. I use a coin to randomly select the spin for each individual test, you blow the C4 and then we go to measure the spins of the two departed halves. We repeat this test 10000 times.

After analyzing the results you are baffled. These discs seem to be communicating with each other magically. When you measure the first disc, you observe that the direction of the spin is random. Oddly enough when you go observe the other disc the first disc seems to have told it do take an opposite spin.

How is this possible? How can the discs communicate with each other like this?

polymath257 wrote:

OK, here's a basic description. There are three boxes. Call the one in the center A and the two at opposite sides of A and well apart from each other, we'll call a and b. Box A has a button on it. Boxes a and b have dials on them with three positions, 1,2 and 3. They also have two lights, red and green. We get to choose the position of the dials and when to push the center button.
Now, whenever the center button is pressed, one light on a and one light on b light up. If we put a barrier between A and a or between A and b, no light gets lit. Furthermore, there is a time delay between the button press and the lights lighting that increases as the distance between a or b and A increases.
Now, we set a and b far enough from A that we have time to set the dials between when the button is pressed and when the lights go on. We also make sure that they are far enough apart that no light signal can go from a to b between when the dial is set and when the lights go on. In the real world experiment, the distance is several times the distance light can go and the dials are electronic and set randomly.
Here's what is observed: If the dials on a and b are set to the same value, the color of the lights that light up are always the same; both are red or both are green. Both colors happen half the time. If, on the other hand, the dials are set to different values, the colors of the lights are the same 50% of the time and different 50% of the time.
Feel free to find *any* mechanism that explains this behavior. yes, I know you can make 'hidden variables' that make things look random. OK, make them do this.
This experiments has actually been done with photons that are entangled with the dials corresponding to polarization. The results are as I described them.
It turns out that *no* hidden variable mechanism can explain these results. I'll let you see if you can figure out why not.

As such this example is useless because you may have chosen the rules from some assumptions.

Could you please now translate this example into the natural world? I think I may know what you are talking about, but I'd like you to describe this setup in the natural.

Don't be afraid to use terms like "polarization", "non linear crystal" etc. or what ever components you need in your natural world experiment. If you could just replace the parts you've given above with real natural world parts, that would be good. Can you do that?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Once more: causality is not an assumption. It is an observable phenomenon of the natural universe. Granted that logically it is possible that uncaused events might occur but there can be no evidence of that.
Why does not someone stand up and explain why he claims some event(s) to be uncaused? Saying that because Bell says so is not an argument.
It is a fact that nonexistence produces no data. Only existence produces data.
<quoted text>
And I don't assume.
Why is it that if I try to get Polymath to discuss about the actual observations then he refuses to do that and hides behind Bell's "postulate"?

Bell's inequalities have been tested and you might be surprised at the results.

Aura Mytha wrote:

You have changed your thesis ,and I suspect it will change
every time you are called on them.

I have not changed my hypothesis to something else. I have only given you more accurate information regarding what is explained to be in the center of the universe in the hypothesis. Of course my hypothesis gets more and more accurate over time. That is the nature of science, accuracy is gained.

Sometimes hypotheses are falsified. You have not been able to falsify mine.

Aura Mytha wrote:

The thing is I have asked you for your supportive evidence several time, to which you reply that the evidence supports your claim . Though you never have supplied any evidence and have morphed your rotational universe now into a 3 axis universe compounding the problem rather than solving it.
You cannot show evidence the universe has a single axis much less three, which is impossible. Because the force of one axis would cancel out all others.

The evidence of the 3-axis rotating singularity causing the whole universe to spin in its wake is the accelerated expansion observed in the universe.

Let's see now. I have:
- the expanding force is explained with know phenomenon (centrifugal force) repeatable in lab environments

You have:
- the expanding force is explained with mythical magical energy, it may be something spooky

The fact is that your model can not explain the force behind the accelerated expansion.

Aura Mytha wrote:

Also the wobble in Earths rotation does not add a additional axis
it only defines Earths imbalance to it's axis. You unless you can provide some evidence are not worth any further discussion.
I suspect your "Pet Hypothesis" will morph even further as long as anyone plays your game. But you have produced nothing but garbage supported by "your word" which means nothing anymore.

You apparently don't understand much of relativity. From the perspective of the Sun in relativistic terms the Earth rotates around it and wobbles. Two axes angular momentum very different from the angular momentum of the Sun itself.

If you look at the moon from the perspective of the Earth, you will notice that the moon's angular momentum is almost identical to the Earth's. These objects move in space as they were connected to each other. Only the moon is departing very very slowly from Earth, this is the very minor difference between their angular momentum.

From the point of view of the Sun, bot the Earth and the moon have angular momentum along at least two axes.

Aura Mytha wrote:

Produce some evidence or please STFU! I beginning to think you will advance just for a entertaining argument , but you are not entertaining. You really should look into being a science fiction writer though, perhaps you will forever miss that calling.

All the evidence that you have, also I have. I can equally ask you to produce evidence that support your model over mine. EVERYTHING that you have provided as support for your model, also supports my model.

The only difference is:
- you explain through myth
while
- I explain through known and repeatable phenomena

Your position is quite medieval, "magic expands the universe".

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Once more: causality is not an assumption. It is an observable phenomenon of the natural universe.

Is it?

"For Hume, causality, as it is in the world, is a regular succession of event-types: one thing invariably following another. His famous first definition of causality runs as follows: "We may define a CAUSE to be 'An object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are plac'd in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter'" (1978 ed., p. 170).

Taking a cue from Malebranche, Hume argued that there was no perception of the supposed necessary connection between the cause and the effect. When a sequence of events that is considered causal is observed—for example, two billiard balls hitting each other and flying apart—there are impressions of the two balls, of their motions, of their collision, and of their flying apart, but there is no impression of any alleged necessity by which the cause brings about the effect.

....The perception of this constant conjunction leads the mind to form a certain habit or custom: to make a "customary transition" from cause to effect. It is this felt determination of the mind that affords us the idea of necessity."

So instead of ascribing the idea of necessity to a feature of the natural world, Hume took it to arise from within the human mind, when the latter is conditioned by the observation of a regularity in nature to form an expectation of the effect, when the cause is present. Indeed, Hume offered a second definition of causality: "A CAUSE is an object precedent and contiguous to another, and so united with it, that the idea of the one determines the mind to form the idea of the other, and the impression of the one to form a more lively idea of the other" (p. 170). Hume thought that he had unpacked the "essence of necessity": it "is something that exists in the mind, not in the objects" (p. 165). He claimed that the supposed objective necessity in nature is spread by the mind onto the world. Hume can be seen as offering an objective theory of causality in the world (since causation amounts to regular succession), which was however accompanied by a mind-dependent view of necessity."

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8538/Causality...

In short, you do not observe cause directly, observe one thing following another. "Causality" or "necessity" is an assumption (or hypothesis) your mind is accustomed to making. You cannot make ny empirical claim that it exists invariably in the world out there...

Chimney1 wrote:

Bell's inequalities have been tested and you might be surprised at the results.

Like what? The EPR which is discussed a few messages above?

Chimney1 wrote:

In short, you do not observe cause directly, observe one thing following another. "Causality" or "necessity" is an assumption (or hypothesis) your mind is accustomed to making. You cannot make ny empirical claim that it exists invariably in the world out there...

How many times must this be explained? Causality is the phenomenon of which links are observed in nature. Causality itself can not be observed exactly as gravity or evolution can not be observed. Only evidence is observed. We can not know how causality exactly works. My hypothesis is that the energy conservation laws are the reason for causality.

Evidence of causality is observed everywhere. You take a knife and stab a cardboard box, what you observe is that the effects of the causes (stabs) are the changes in the shape of the box.

Causality is a natural phenomenon exactly as evolution is. We don't know exactly how these two phenomena work.

humble brother wrote:

Only the moon is departing very very slowly from Earth, this is the very minor difference between their angular momentum.

Correction:

That is the only difference between their overall momenta. Their angular momentum is absolutely identical according to the observations. This indicates that the moon was once part of Earth.

humble brother wrote:

Correction:
That is the only difference between their overall momenta. Their angular momentum is absolutely identical according to the observations. This indicates that the moon was once part of Earth.

This is actually an interesting topic. I just realized that the angular momenta of the moon and Earth are nowhere near each other. If that were true then we would not see just one side of the moon constantly but one rotation of Earth would correspond to one rotation of the moon. So the moon did not originate from Earth :) it may just have collided with it.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I have not changed my hypothesis to something else. I have only given you more accurate information regarding what is explained to be in the center of the universe in the hypothesis. Of course my hypothesis gets more and more accurate over time. That is the nature of science, accuracy is gained.
Sometimes hypotheses are falsified. You have not been able to falsify mine.
<quoted text>
The evidence of the 3-axis rotating singularity causing the whole universe to spin in its wake is the accelerated expansion observed in the universe.
Let's see now. I have:
- the expanding force is explained with know phenomenon (centrifugal force) repeatable in lab environments
You have:
- the expanding force is explained with mythical magical energy, it may be something spooky
The fact is that your model can not explain the force behind the accelerated expansion.
<quoted text>
You apparently don't understand much of relativity. From the perspective of the Sun in relativistic terms the Earth rotates around it and wobbles. Two axes angular momentum very different from the angular momentum of the Sun itself.
If you look at the moon from the perspective of the Earth, you will notice that the moon's angular momentum is almost identical to the Earth's. These objects move in space as they were connected to each other. Only the moon is departing very very slowly from Earth, this is the very minor difference between their angular momentum.
From the point of view of the Sun, bot the Earth and the moon have angular momentum along at least two axes.
<quoted text>
All the evidence that you have, also I have. I can equally ask you to produce evidence that support your model over mine. EVERYTHING that you have provided as support for your model, also supports my model.
The only difference is:
- you explain through myth
while
- I explain through known and repeatable phenomena
Your position is quite medieval, "magic expands the universe".

(((((Let's see now. I have:
- the expanding force is explained with know phenomenon (centrifugal force) repeatable in lab environments.)))))

Centrifugal force can only be made with a engine or motor to drive it. No test using centrifugal force has ever caused space to expand. Centrifugal force or the inertia it creates will also
in any experiment create a void at the axis of rotation. This would
align everything on a single plane and cancel out all other motion.
Aligning space to a closed curved flat model.

No void in the universe.
No center to the universe.
No engine or motor found in the universe.

The universe is not on a single plane WMAP has shown us it is an with 1 degree or less curvature.
This means it is not closed but the infinite flat model.

These are four major fact that falsify your hypothesis.

Now let's talk about Earth's wobble.

Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891 discovered the imbalance in Earths axis
and it was named after him and is now known as The Chandler wobble.
Many ideas have come to explain why there is a imbalance in Earth axis most believe it is due to the water bulge created from tidal forces created by the moon's gravity.

Make no mistake it is a imbalance.

Here is the hypothesis of a JPL scientist.

Richard Gross, The cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans. He determined this by applying numerical models of the oceans, which have only recently become available through the work of other researchers, to data on the Chandler wobble obtained during the years 1985-1995. Gross calculated that two-thirds of the Chandler wobble is caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and the remaining one-third by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/...

Aura Mytha wrote:

Centrifugal force can only be made with a engine or motor to drive it.

So all planets have engines then? How odd...

Aura Mytha wrote:

No test using centrifugal force has ever caused space to expand.

- expansion of space is not observed
- the matter in the galaxy is observed move away from each other in an expansion like manner
- centrifugal force causes all objects the force affects to accelerate away from each other

Aura Mytha wrote:

Centrifugal force or the inertia it creates will also
in any experiment create a void at the axis of rotation. This would
align everything on a single plane and cancel out all other motion.
Aligning space to a closed curved flat model.

No void in the universe.
No center to the universe.
No engine or motor found in the universe.

The motor:
Three (or more) streams of matter in the center of the universe.-> NO VOID in the center

One stream causes rotation around one axis (disc like expansion plane).
Two streams cause rotation around two separate axes (spherical expansion).
Three streams cause rotation around three separate axes (spherical expansion).

How is this so difficult to understand for you?

Aura Mytha wrote:

These are four major fact that falsify your hypothesis.

Your straw man fallacy is explained above.

Aura Mytha wrote:

Seth Carlo Chandler in 1891 discovered the imbalance in Earths axis
and it was named after him and is now known as The Chandler wobble.
Many ideas have come to explain why there is a imbalance in Earth axis most believe it is due to the water bulge created from tidal forces created by the moon's gravity.

Make no mistake it is a imbalance.

Angular momentum of two axes does indeed cause imbalance of the other axis. Thank you for supporting my argument.

Aura Mytha wrote:

Here is the hypothesis of a JPL scientist.

Richard Gross, The cause of the Chandler wobble is fluctuating pressure on the bottom of the ocean, by temperature and salinity changes and wind-driven changes in the circulation of the oceans. He determined this by applying numerical models of the oceans, which have only recently become available through the work of other researchers, to data on the Chandler wobble obtained during the years 1985-1995. Gross calculated that two-thirds of the Chandler wobble is caused by ocean-bottom pressure changes and the remaining one-third by fluctuations in atmospheric pressure.

Exactly. It's an hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an argument.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Sure. Let's destroy it. Let's do this in macro world so you will see how the macro laws work identically to the micro (quantum).
We prepare a setup in space. You control a button and I get to choose initial spin:
1. A button in your hand uses an radio signal to cause some C4 to explode
2. You have prepared this C4 so that you have put two massive DVD-rom like metal disks together and the C4 is in between them causing them to depart on explosion
3. My job is to put this combination to spin before you press the button
4. I can choose either of the two directions of spin and are not to tell you which direction I chose
5. The setup is such that you don't see either spin until you go close to one of these discs to detect the spin
We start repeating this experiment over and over again. I use a coin to randomly select the spin for each individual test, you blow the C4 and then we go to measure the spins of the two departed halves. We repeat this test 10000 times.
After analyzing the results you are baffled. These discs seem to be communicating with each other magically. When you measure the first disc, you observe that the direction of the spin is random. Oddly enough when you go observe the other disc the first disc seems to have told it do take an opposite spin.
How is this possible? How can the discs communicate with each other like this?

The problem with this setup is the two detection locations are far enough apart that light cannot travel between them in the time between the button push and the detection. So your rotating disks won't be able to make it to the detection locations.

Also, we measure spin on many different axes. After we bring the results together, we find that thre results are the same when we measured the same axes at the two ends, but the correlations when the two ends measure on different axes are more than could be given classically.

FAIL

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
As such this example is useless because you may have chosen the rules from some assumptions.
Could you please now translate this example into the natural world? I think I may know what you are talking about, but I'd like you to describe this setup in the natural.
Don't be afraid to use terms like "polarization", "non linear crystal" etc. or what ever components you need in your natural world experiment. If you could just replace the parts you've given above with real natural world parts, that would be good. Can you do that?

(From Mermin's article:'Is the moon there when nobody looks?' with some comments interspersed by me.)

Here is one way to make such a device:

Let the source produce two particles of spin 1&#8260;2 in the singlet state, flying apart toward the two detectors.
(Granted, this is not all that easy to do, but in the Orsay experiments described below, the same effect is
achieved with correlated photons). This state is (1/sqrt(2))(<+-|- <-+|)

Each detector contains a Stern-Gerlach magnet, oriented along one of three directions (a(1), a(2), or a(3)),
perpendicular to the line of flight of the particles, and separated by 120 degrees. These are places far enough apart that light cannot travel between them between the time when the photons are emitted and the detection (opposite directions from the photon source).

The three settings of the switch determine which orientation is used.

The light on one detector flashes red
or green, depending on whether the particle is deflected toward the north (spin up) or south (spin down) pole
of the magnet as it passes between them; the other detector uses the opposite color convention.

The observations:

When the magnets are oriented the same way, the results at the two ends are the same. When they are oriented differently, the lights are the same 50% of the time and different 50% of the time.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So all planets have engines then? How odd...
<quoted text>
- expansion of space is not observed
- the matter in the galaxy is observed move away from each other in an expansion like manner
- centrifugal force causes all objects the force affects to accelerate away from each other
<quoted text>
The motor:
Three (or more) streams of matter in the center of the universe.-> NO VOID in the center
One stream causes rotation around one axis (disc like expansion plane).
Two streams cause rotation around two separate axes (spherical expansion).
Three streams cause rotation around three separate axes (spherical expansion).
How is this so difficult to understand for you?
<quoted text>
Your straw man fallacy is explained above.
<quoted text>
Angular momentum of two axes does indeed cause imbalance of the other axis. Thank you for supporting my argument.
<quoted text>
Exactly. It's an hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an argument.

The Earth is a falling body it's engine is the sun and spin derives
from the conservation of angular momentum @ 90 degrees to motion made from the collapsing debris it was comprised of.
This is classic Newtonian laws of motion.

No strawman but there is a backpedaling and goal post moving going on here.

Show us ..

Three (or more) streams of matter in the center of the universe.

Show us..

A center of the universe.

Show us...

Any axis

Show us...

The expansion of space is not observed , because last time I checked it is.
It's called Hubble's Law.

How difficult is it for you to understand you're wrong?

humble brother wrote:

If you look at the moon from the perspective of the Earth, you will notice that the moon's angular momentum is almost identical to the Earth's. These objects move in space as they were connected to each other. Only the moon is departing very very slowly from Earth, this is the very minor difference between their angular momentum.

Let's do the calculation.

Mass of the Moon (m): 7.3*10^22 kg
Distance of the moon from earth (r): 3.84*10^8 m
Orbital speed (v): 1*10^3 m/s.

Angular momentum as measured from earth: L=mvr=2.86*10^34 kg m^2 /s.

Mass of the earth (M): 6*10^24 kg.
Radius of the earth (R): 6.4*10^6 m
Angular velocity of the earth (w): 2*pi/86400=7.27*10^(-5)/s
Moment of inertia of a sphere: I=(2/5)MR^2= 9.83*10^37 kg.m^2

Angular momentum of the earth: L=Iw=7.14*10^(33) kg m^2/s.

Not the same, but within a factor of 4 of each other. That makes them close.

polymath257 wrote:

The problem with this setup is the two detection locations are far enough apart that light cannot travel between them in the time between the button push and the detection. So your rotating disks won't be able to make it to the detection locations.
Also, we measure spin on many different axes. After we bring the results together, we find that thre results are the same when we measured the same axes at the two ends, but the correlations when the two ends measure on different axes are more than could be given classically.
FAIL

Apparently you didn't understand the point of the simple example. The point is conservation of angular momentum. I happens at marco level and it happens at the quantum level.

If you have one spin which separates into two separate spins of two particles moving to opposite directions, they have the original angular momentum and because the directions are opposite the spins relative to the speed vectors are of course opposite. Their angular momentum still remains the same.

Causality at its best.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
So all planets have engines then? How odd...
<quoted text>
- expansion of space is not observed
- the matter in the galaxy is observed move away from each other in an expansion like manner
- centrifugal force causes all objects the force affects to accelerate away from each other

No, they move away from the axis or rotation.

The motor:
Three (or more) streams of matter in the center of the universe.-> NO VOID in the center

What center?

One stream causes rotation around one axis (disc like expansion plane).

How does that causality work again?

Two streams cause rotation around two separate axes (spherical expansion).

How do streams of material cause roation about na axis?

Three streams cause rotation around three separate axes (spherical expansion).

Doesn't work that way, sorry.

How is this so difficult to understand for you?

Not difficult to understand, just wrong in many details: such as how roations work.

Angular momentum of two axes does indeed cause imbalance of the other axis. Thank you for supporting my argument.

Angular momentum is a vector quantity. It does not have to align with the rotation axis. In the case of the earth, the two do not align, which is what produces the wobble in the axis of rotation, while preserving the direction of the angular momentum.

Exactly. It's an hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an argument.

Give some mathematical details concerning how rotation around three axes is possible and what, exactly, you mean by it. You may give the matrix description if you want or the equations of motion if that is easier. Make sure you take into consideration not only the centrifugal force terms, but also the coriolis effects. If you attempt to do so, your model will crumble.