UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN via EVOLUTION

[mooeypoo]

ANSWER: The hypothesis is not false and it is a scientific fact. The Universe has an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy a particle atmosphere)?**This is what light travels on, the same as sound travels in the atmosphere.

... No.. the universe does *not* have an ether, this was proven wrong by einstein. If you claim it's right, you should *PROVE IT*, not just claim it.

 

If your entire theory is based on Ether, I would say you have a very big problem. Substantiation? Proof? You might want to start with that, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

If you treat Darkmatter as "Ether" (interesting..) then your definition that Ether is what light travels through is plain wrong.. Dark matter exists, but it isn't consistent throughout space.

 

--EDIT:--

Here is an article about the so called Ether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

Prove why Ether exists; otherwise it was proven NOT to exist. At least not as a "Universe Atmosphere". Light is proven to go through strict vacuum, so ether is not NEEDED for it (unlike sound waves, that will not travel through vacuum). Your theory is based on a strawman. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

 

---------

 

ANSWER: There was a hypothesized big bang but it was a local bang, and there are many other big bangs that have occurred both before and after the so called Big Bang that occurred in our Milky Way galaxy of the Universe where Earth resides.. The many other big bang type super galactic explosions have been recorded in deep space by the Hubble telescope's photographs. Big bangs did not start time as time is eternal.

Again you're making a claim without substantiating it. I am not saying you are definitely wrong, I am saying you are definitely not automatically correct. Substantiate your claims. Supply proof.

 

Answer: If the Big Bang created the Universe as the some scientist believe, it could not have occurred out of nothing. As the Universe was there then, now, and forever.

Actually, *most* scientists "believe", not "some", but okay, I'll work with that. And scientists do NOT claim the big bang (It is actually more correct to call it "INFLATION THEORY" btw.. big bang was a term invented to ridicule the theory) occured out of nothing. Perhaps you should read more about what is currently thought of about the big bang before you set off to disprove it and build an alternative theory.

 

 

ANSWER:I am an agnostic and The theory of the Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution (UIDE), is a guiding means (a road map) of Newton's Universe's ether sea construction and operation. This Intelligent Design (ID) and Intuitive Intelligence (II) is not to be mistaken with the suggested religious version of Intelligent design (Id), which leaves Evolution out of the human enlightenment.

This is what I meant by "SEPARATING religion and science". The question of God itself has no place in scientific theory because God is OUTSIDE the laws of nature, and Science deals STRICTLY with the laws of nature. By placing a question about God (specifically calling it "scientific controversy" -- WHICH IT IS NOT) is mixing the two subjects.

 

I must tell you -- Intelligent Design is a theory that states the universe was *DESIGNED* intelligently. Creationists claim it is God (who is outside the laws of nature). You claim you don't call it god.. but then -- what do you call it? Intelligent Design specifically talks about an intelligent *DESIGNER*. Who is this designer?

 

ANSWER#5:To further understand the origin of life on Earth scientists have studied where life exists on Earth. For example, microbes have been found in acid flows, in the down vents of volcanoes, in lakes of soda, an on the under side of the polar ice, arranging the planet for the rest of creation. Scientists have detected bacteria living contentedly in high clouds, procreating, some seeding the water vapor and causing raindrops or hail.

 

Who knows what kind of bacteria is then deposited on Earth's land or oceans. These low life forms of bacterial life are contributing to the vitality of Earth. Earth is a living organism.

WOW. Okay...... WHAT!? Earth is a living organism!?!?!

 

The fact earth has living organisms *ON IT* does not make Earth *a living organism*. This fallacy is like claiming a bucket is water because it contains water.. it makes no sense. Earth is not a living organism. It is a planet supporting life as we know it. Ces-tout.

 

Bacteria thrives in Yellowstone's hot springs and rocks and at the bottom of Lake Yellowstone. These strange marine like creatures survive in extreme heat and without oxygen. The Universe (ID)sends commands to these creatures through DNA and download programming.

I still don't understand what the heck you're calling ID here.. the universe IS "ID" !?? The universe is intelligent? What.. the heck are you saying. It's... an organism? An "intelligence"?

 

You have to start putting FACTS and EXPLANATIONS to substantiate what you are saying, otherwise don't be surprise you are not taken seriously.

 

 

Question:

ANSWER: No trap--however do we individual humans even have the brain power to know and understand the Universe's true mechanism? If our brains, through evolution (Refer to baby Lucy), do reach the point when we can handle the vast computations required to understand, how would it affect the human intelligentsia? Just because Lucy lived on Earth three million years ago does not mean all humans now residing on Earth, developed on Earth.

 

Soon the interconnected brains of millions of humans When connected through an Internet like networks can better understand the Universe and the Earth we reside on, than the individual can.

STOP MAKING CLAIMS YOU CANNOT (and apparantly WILL NOT) PROVE.

 

This is a science-oriented forum. Empirical evidence and observations are required for hypotheses and you must start substantiating your extravagant claims before relying on them to make a hypothesis.

 

 

STATEMENT BY MOO: And don't mix religion, belief, and SCIENCE together (God has nothing to do with science. Nothing. By definition.)

Specifically not in a SCIENCE forum. ~moo

 

ANSWER: Where is the religion, as I am agnostic. UIDE is science.

I already explained that above. Take into account that ID is ID, no matter how you put it, and if you're not refering to the ID we all know and love (NOT) then perhaps you should change the title. And I still require an answer as to why you call your theory ID if you don't haave an intelligent designer. It's not Intelligent D(d)esign without a D(d)esigner. Explain please.

 

 

 

ANSWER: Wrong UIDE is science of and eternal Universe, religion was createdby man

 

You make no sense. Read my above claims and answer them. Your hypothesis is based on unsubstantiated assumptions; you CANNOT build a theory based on no-proof and then expect people to take it seriously. You're seeking to change what science knows (or what you *think* it knows) about the universe. You need to work on convincing people by giving proper substantiating arguments. So far, none was given. You started your argument with a claim that was long ago proven to be false, whether you changed its name or not (Ether vs. Dark matter...??) and you just decide it must be right -- from there, you make a hypothesis. That's not the way science works.

 

The equivalent of your method would be if I claim fish are monkeys because evolution claims we came from the same organism (strawman, over-simplification, among other fallacies) and from there state that therefore fish are capable of understanding our speech and communicate with us on a daily basis. Then, I will give the example of my own personal goldfish, who i promise you talked to me when I was very tired yesterday and cheered me up. case made.

 

That wasn't science, and I wouldn't expect ANYONE to take the theory seriously. If you want to claim something - specifically something that overturns CURRENT scientific theories - you need to prove EVERYTHING, from the beginning claim to the last claim and only THEN make a hypothesis and a theory about it.

 

ANSWER: MOO please seperate ID from Id. Thank you for your informative and interesting, thought provoking questions. FRIPRO

Again: I didn't know there *was* a separation. I would be glad to hear what you mean by it.. Intelligent Design suggests there is an Intelligent Designer behind the "design". If it isn't your meaning, I would suggest changing the name... I'm not trying to be a pain about this, I'm simply trying to state that what you choose as your title has the reader assume certain things in advance. It's only natural.

 

 

Cheers,

 

~moo

[DrDNA]

This is what happens when you skip class to stay home and watch old Battlestar Galactica, Lost in Space and Star Trek rerums.

[fripro]

... No.. the universe does *not* have an ether, this was proven wrong by einstein. If you claim it's right, you should *PROVE IT*, not just claim it.

 

If your entire theory is based on Ether, I would say you have a very big problem. Substantiation? Proof? You might want to start with that, if you want anyone to take you seriously.

 

If you treat Darkmatter as "Ether" (interesting..) then your definition that Ether is what light travels through is plain wrong.. Dark matter exists, but it isn't consistent throughout space.

 

--EDIT:--

Here is an article about the so called Ether: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

 

Prove why Ether exists; otherwise it was proven NOT to exist. At least not as a "Universe Atmosphere". Light is proven to go through strict vacuum, so ether is not NEEDED for it (unlike sound waves, that will not travel through vacuum). Your theory is based on a strawman. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

 

---------

 

 

Again you're making a claim without substantiating it. I am not saying you are definitely wrong, I am saying you are definitely not automatically correct. Substantiate your claims. Supply proof.

 

 

Actually, *most* scientists "believe", not "some", but okay, I'll work with that. And scientists do NOT claim the big bang (It is actually more correct to call it "INFLATION THEORY" btw.. big bang was a term invented to ridicule the theory) occured out of nothing. Perhaps you should read more about what is currently thought of about the big bang before you set off to disprove it and build an alternative theory.

 

 

 

This is what I meant by "SEPARATING religion and science". The question of God itself has no place in scientific theory because God is OUTSIDE the laws of nature, and Science deals STRICTLY with the laws of nature. By placing a question about God (specifically calling it "scientific controversy" -- WHICH IT IS NOT) is mixing the two subjects.

 

I must tell you -- Intelligent Design is a theory that states the universe was *DESIGNED* intelligently. Creationists claim it is God (who is outside the laws of nature). You claim you don't call it god.. but then -- what do you call it? Intelligent Design specifically talks about an intelligent *DESIGNER*. Who is this designer?

 

 

WOW. Okay...... WHAT!? Earth is a living organism!?!?!

 

The fact earth has living organisms *ON IT* does not make Earth *a living organism*. This fallacy is like claiming a bucket is water because it contains water.. it makes no sense. Earth is not a living organism. It is a planet supporting life as we know it. Ces-tout.

 

 

I still don't understand what the heck you're calling ID here.. the universe IS "ID" !?? The universe is intelligent? What.. the heck are you saying. It's... an organism? An "intelligence"?

 

You have to start putting FACTS and EXPLANATIONS to substantiate what you are saying, otherwise don't be surprise you are not taken seriously.

 

 

 

STOP MAKING CLAIMS YOU CANNOT (and apparantly WILL NOT) PROVE.

 

This is a science-oriented forum. Empirical evidence and observations are required for hypotheses and you must start substantiating your extravagant claims before relying on them to make a hypothesis.

 

 

 

I already explained that above. Take into account that ID is ID, no matter how you put it, and if you're not refering to the ID we all know and love (NOT) then perhaps you should change the title. And I still require an answer as to why you call your theory ID if you don't haave an intelligent designer. It's not Intelligent D(d)esign without a D(d)esigner. Explain please.

 

 

 

 

 

You make no sense. Read my above claims and answer them. Your hypothesis is based on unsubstantiated assumptions; you CANNOT build a theory based on no-proof and then expect people to take it seriously. You're seeking to change what science knows (or what you *think* it knows) about the universe. You need to work on convincing people by giving proper substantiating arguments. So far, none was given. You started your argument with a claim that was long ago proven to be false, whether you changed its name or not (Ether vs. Dark matter...??) and you just decide it must be right -- from there, you make a hypothesis. That's not the way science works.

 

The equivalent of your method would be if I claim fish are monkeys because evolution claims we came from the same organism (strawman, over-simplification, among other fallacies) and from there state that therefore fish are capable of understanding our speech and communicate with us on a daily basis. Then, I will give the example of my own personal goldfish, who i promise you talked to me when I was very tired yesterday and cheered me up. case made.

 

That wasn't science, and I wouldn't expect ANYONE to take the theory seriously. If you want to claim something - specifically something that overturns CURRENT scientific theories - you need to prove EVERYTHING, from the beginning claim to the last claim and only THEN make a hypothesis and a theory about it.

 

 

Again: I didn't know there *was* a separation. I would be glad to hear what you mean by it.. Intelligent Design suggests there is an Intelligent Designer behind the "design". If it isn't your meaning, I would suggest changing the name... I'm not trying to be a pain about this, I'm simply trying to state that what you choose as your title has the reader assume certain things in advance. It's only natural.

 

 

Cheers,

 

~moo

 

MOO, I have log on to the URL you have given above , and I found this: Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless:

 

“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

 

I also would like to point out that this string's title says UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN. This means possesion in English. I imply that the Universe itself posses the ability to make Intelligent Designs and that is it's ID. ID is a minds ability to think. Your ID, my ID, the Univers's ID etc.

 

Why would you think that the grey matter in your head or my head has the only means to think in this Universe? But please let's not get off of the main premise that of a particle ether (aether) atmosphere of the Universe that makes it all possible.

[mooeypoo]

I am going to reply to you, but please do me a favour: When you are replying to a long thread, you should mark your responses by putting "/quote" after MY QUOTE and before your answer and continue with "quote=mooeypoo" before my next claim. Both should be encapsulated in square brackets.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but I keep sifting through your posts to find my arguments and your responses -- it's confusing.

 

MOO, I have log on to the URL you have given above , and I found this: Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless:

 

“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

You've obviously missed the point. The experiment proved that Ether did not exist. If my claim that it was Einstein who proved it wrong was mistaken, I apologized, it is what I remembered, nevertheless, be it Einstein or others, it *WAS PROVEN WRONG*.

 

Avoiding the evidence is childish. And annoying. Please stop.

 

 

I also would like to point out that this string's title says UNIVERSE'S INTELLIGENT DESIGN. This means possesion in English. I imply that the Universe itself posses the ability to make Intelligent Designs and that is it's ID. ID is a minds ability to think. Your ID, my ID, the Univers's ID etc.

Alright, I'll make it simpler:

 

1. Words have meaning, and words have conontations. There are people who are employed in book-publishing firms that have the entire sole job to FIND WORDS and TERMS that mean something to people, or raise certain conotations.
    
   Intelligent Design has a SPECIFIC CONOTATION.
    
   You need to understand that by calling your theory Intelligent Design, people approach it *AS an intelligent design argument*.
   
2. Intelligent Design means SOMETHING WAS DESIGNED. Design means intention. Intelligence. Hence: Intelligent Design. The universe is a PLACE.. a "location".. a name for what we consider the space we live in that encompasses the phenomenas around us.
    
   IT DOES NOT HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE. It does not have an intention. It does NOT "design" per sae. If you want to say "what a lovely thing was created" then the word you need is NOT design. I am not sure what it is, but the conotation AND meaning of design (specifically an intelligent one) is *NOT* what the way to describe the universe.
    
   I can give you a googleplex amount of examples of UNINTELLIGENT designs of space phenomena, too. It doesn't make the universe "STUPID".

Why would you think that the grey matter in your head or my head has the only means to think in this Universe? But please let's not get off of the main premise that of a particle ether (aether) atmosphere of the Universe that makes it all possible.

 

I wouldn't THINK anything like that. If I would like to make a claim, I would SUBSTANTIATE IT.

 

Go check the dictionary about substantiation. Or about a way to create a proper convincing argument. And about the empirical method. And about the scientific method.

 

Your way of ignoring them (or.. not knowing about them? which is it?) is quite frustrating.

 

You're not going to convince anyone, even if people do treat you seriously, if you don't stop preaching dogmas (dogmas are not necessarily religious, you know) and start putting some proof and explanations and logical thought-pathways behind your quite extravagant argument.

 

So far, there's NOTHING you said that could POSSIBLY convince me -- or anyone with the slightest bit of scientific knowledge, of that matter -- that your theory of intelligent universe has any merit.

 

NOTHING.

 

You could, however, start substantiating.

 

 

I'm willing to wait for it patiently for proof. Take your time.

 

~moo

[fripro]

I am going to reply to you, but please do me a favour: When you are replying to a long thread, you should mark your responses by putting "/quote" after MY QUOTE and before your answer and continue with "quote=mooeypoo" before my next claim. Both should be encapsulated in square brackets.

 

I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but I keep sifting through your posts to find my arguments and your responses -- it's confusing.

 

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

You've obviously missed the point. The experiment proved that Ether did not exist. If my claim that it was Einstein who proved it wrong was mistaken, I apologized, it is what I remembered, nevertheless, be it Einstein or others, it *WAS PROVEN WRONG*.

 

I do not agree on this point and either do many others in the world we live on. Ether (Aether) does exist, as a particle atmosphere everywhere, compatible with both the General Theory of Relativity (the understanding of mass in space) and the Quantum Mechanics Theory the understanding of mass particles on the subatomic scale.

 

................................................................................

Avoiding the evidence is childish. And annoying. Please stop.

 

 

 

Alright, I'll make it simpler:

 

1. Words have meaning, and words have conontations. There are people who are employed in book-publishing firms that have the entire sole job to FIND WORDS and TERMS that mean something to people, or raise certain conotations.
    
   Intelligent Design has a SPECIFIC CONOTATION.
    
   You need to understand that by calling your theory Intelligent Design, people approach it *AS an intelligent design argument*.
   
2. Intelligent Design means SOMETHING WAS DESIGNED. Design means intention. Intelligence. Hence: Intelligent Design. The universe is a PLACE.. a "location".. a name for what we consider the space we live in that encompasses the phenomenas around us.
    
   IT DOES NOT HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE. It does not have an intention. It does NOT "design" per sae. If you want to say "what a lovely thing was created" then the word you need is NOT design. I am not sure what it is, but the conotation AND meaning of design (specifically an intelligent one) is *NOT* what the way to describe the universe.
    
   I can give you a googleplex amount of examples of UNINTELLIGENT designs of space phenomena, too. It doesn't make the universe "STUPID".

 

I wouldn't THINK anything like that. If I would like to make a claim, I would SUBSTANTIATE IT.

 

Go check the dictionary about substantiation. Or about a way to create a proper convincing argument. And about the empirical method. And about the scientific method.

 

Your way of ignoring them (or.. not knowing about them? which is it?) is quite frustrating.

 

You're not going to convince anyone, even if people do treat you seriously, if you don't stop preaching dogmas (dogmas are not necessarily religious, you know) and start putting some proof and explanations and logical thought-pathways behind your quite extravagant argument.

 

So far, there's NOTHING you said that could POSSIBLY convince me -- or anyone with the slightest bit of scientific knowledge, of that matter -- that your theory of intelligent universe has any merit.

 

NOTHING.

 

You could, however, start substantiating.

 

 

I'm willing to wait for it patiently for proof. Take your time.

 

~moo

My friend MOO if I may, I just seen a photo of our planet earth from one of our space ships beyond Saturn. The Earth looked like a pinhead so small that it would not even be missed in space.

 

Then when you think of you and I on its surface, and our own short life cycle, why would you believe that your argument about my statement The Universe's Intelligent Design of this earth and its species is not valid. Who do you think really did it? I do not want to get into the samanics of our creation. -but it was not an Earthman's created god I assure you.

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

 

Please do not take this debate back to religion as it is not in my area of science either. As a Physist believe you me my book The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution does prove the many questions that you and others have raised.

 

My friend MOO if I may, I just seen a photo of our planet earth from one of our space ships beyond Saturn. The Earth looked like a pinhead so small that it would not even be missed in space.

 

Then when you think of you and I on its surface, and our own short life cycle, why would you believe that your argument about my statement The Universe's Intelligent Design of this earth and its species is not valid. Who do you think really did it? I do not want to get into the samanics of our creation. -but it was not an Earthman's created god I assure you.

 

Please do not take this debate back to religion as it is not in my area of science either. As a Physist believe you me my book The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution does prove the many questions that you and others have raised.I also said This does not violate, the General Theory of Relativity (the understanding of mass in space) and the Quantum Mechanics Theory the understanding of mass particles on the subatomic scale

 

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

[foodchain]

My friend MOO if I may, I just seen a photo of our planet earth from one of our space ships beyond Saturn. The Earth looked like a pinhead so small that it would not even be missed in space.

 

Then when you think of you and I on its surface, and our own short life cycle, why would you believe that your argument about my statement The Universe's Intelligent Design of this earth and its species is not valid. Who do you think really did it? I do not want to get into the samanics of our creation. -but it was not an Earthman's created god I assure you.

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

 

Please do not take this debate back to religion as it is not in my area of science either. As a Physist believe you me my book The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution does prove the many questions that you and others have raised.

 

 

 

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

 

 

How do you prove the existence of the universe via evolution by intelligent design. The whole sentence makes no sense to me to be honest.

 

I am very interested in the idea of evolution as applied outside of the scope of life from the reality of natural selection holding an environmental property. I don’t however know how to go about actually trying to apply such to anything outside of life, which is of course part of the universe and related physical phenomena. You see, part of the problem with organic evolution as it relates to being applied by principle of natural selection to cosmic function is in difference. Many people support in large a degree of determinism from the bang to now. Trying to apply such strict determinism to life simply falls apart to keep things short. Life though has sustained itself for billions of years though, but that does not have to have the exact same physical basis as for the origin or reality of things like galaxies I would say even while issues like quantum mechanics would also apply to life. Maybe determinism is just not fully understood, or the reality the word or math describes is not fully understood like the definition or concept really of time.

[mooeypoo]

My friend MOO if I may, I just seen a photo of our planet earth from one of our space ships beyond Saturn. The Earth looked like a pinhead so small that it would not even be missed in space.

 

Then when you think of you and I on its surface, and our own short life cycle, why would you believe that your argument about my statement The Universe's Intelligent Design of this earth and its species is not valid. Who do you think really did it? I do not want to get into the samanics of our creation. -but it was not an Earthman's created god I assure you.

 

I don't think it's invalid, i think there are not enough evidence to consider it valid. That's the way things work, my friend. And you keep AVOIDING PROOF.

 

It's getting rather tiresome.

 

What you're using now is the nice fallacy of arguing from emotion -- it LOOKS magnificent, so it MUST be alive.. or something of this sort. It's a fallacy nontheless, and it is - fallacy or not -- not proven.

 

I didn't say your theory is impossible, i said it's implausible, and that the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

Proving, however, is not just stating things. It's actually going step by step and showing your logic in your claim.

 

You have YET to do that.

 

So I am not convinced.

 

So lets get back to the real issue the Universe's ether atmosphere and the particles that make its atmosphere the building blocks of all matter, radiation (waves) and the gravity that holds it all together. If you would read my manuscript in whole,you may have a different opinion of ether particles which I have given the name WIT particles.

My goodness, for the eleventh time, please try to read this intently and carefully, you are being quite frustrating about this:

 

IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS NO ETHER ATMOSPHERE.

 

If you think this proof is wrong, you need to PROVE OTHERWISE.

 

I shall therefore - from now on - ignore ALL AND ANY CLAIMS you make about the ether, until you manage to PROVE TO US that it EXISTS.

 

You cannot pluck a claim out of thin air, and just suppose it's true. Out of nothing. Well.. I suppose you can - but that's not SCIENCE. Substantiate, or stop talking about the stupid ether already.

 

If you don't, I'm afraid I'm going to have to file this theory under my "insane mambojumbo" file cabinet and never look back.

 

Really.. if you are *that sure* that your theory is correct, you should have absolutely NO PROBLEMS proving it. Poking holes (or.. TRYING to) in existing scientific theories DOES NOT prove your theory. It merely points out what current theories have no answer for (if even).

Suggesting that since science may be wrong YOUR theory is certainly right is NO DIFFERENT than religious dogmatic ID proponents; they claim the same, and it's the SAME FALLACY (I believe it's called "False Continuum").

 

 

Please do not take this debate back to religion as it is not in my area of science either. As a Physist believe you me my book The Universe's Intelligent Design via Evolution does prove the many questions that you and others have raised.

 

I didn't take it back to religion. If you keep claiming Ether is the medium through which light travels through - and supply no proof, or explanations whatsoever - then I would claim you are not a physicist either.

 

Supply Proof, for heaven's sakes; I am not saying your theory is DEFINITELY WRONG, I'm saying I'm not convinced and I *CANNOT BE CONVINCED* until you supply PROOF.

 

 

You are being most frustrating.

 

~moo

[DrDNA]

For heaven's sake man. Just read the book and you'll understand.

[Fred56]

If anyone's interested in the logic, or what I call the logicalism, behind some of it, this from the 'International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design'.

http://www.ctmu.net/

[iNow]

Just wait for it. Here comes yet another response that fails to address your points or offer valid explanations of the points expressed.

[fripro]

I don't think it's invalid, i think there are not enough evidence to consider it valid. That's the way things work, my friend. And you keep AVOIDING PROOF.

 

It's getting rather tiresome.

 

What you're using now is the nice fallacy of arguing from emotion -- it LOOKS magnificent, so it MUST be alive.. or something of this sort. It's a fallacy nontheless, and it is - fallacy or not -- not proven.

 

I didn't say your theory is impossible, i said it's implausible, and that the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

Proving, however, is not just stating things. It's actually going step by step and showing your logic in your claim.

 

You have YET to do that.

 

So I am not convinced.

 

 

My goodness, for the eleventh time, please try to read this intently and carefully, you are being quite frustrating about this:

 

IT WAS PROVEN THAT THE UNIVERSE HAS NO ETHER ATMOSPHERE.

 

If you think this proof is wrong, you need to PROVE OTHERWISE.

 

I shall therefore - from now on - ignore ALL AND ANY CLAIMS you make about the ether, until you manage to PROVE TO US that it EXISTS.

 

You cannot pluck a claim out of thin air, and just suppose it's true. Out of nothing. Well.. I suppose you can - but that's not SCIENCE. Substantiate, or stop talking about the stupid ether already.

 

If you don't, I'm afraid I'm going to have to file this theory under my "insane mambojumbo" file cabinet and never look back.

 

Really.. if you are *that sure* that your theory is correct, you should have absolutely NO PROBLEMS proving it. Poking holes (or.. TRYING to) in existing scientific theories DOES NOT prove your theory. It merely points out what current theories have no answer for (if even).

Suggesting that since science may be wrong YOUR theory is certainly right is NO DIFFERENT than religious dogmatic ID proponents; they claim the same, and it's the SAME FALLACY (I believe it's called "False Continuum").

 

MOO, Read my book on line now. The address was given very earlier in this thread .I do not want to place it here as it is against the rules. Beiieve you me there is infatic proof that the ether (Aether) exist. Until you read it , please we are going no where. I can not prover it in this string and you know it.

 

I really appreciate your time and questions and they are valid ones. How ever man in general know very little about the Universe, and I only its servant, its hands do what we are programmed to do. FRIPRO.[/unQUOTE]

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't take it back to religion. If you keep claiming Ether is the medium through which light travels through - and supply no proof, or explanations whatsoever - then I would claim you are not a physicist either.

 

Supply Proof, for heaven's sakes; I am not saying your theory is DEFINITELY WRONG, I'm saying I'm not convinced and I *CANNOT BE CONVINCED* until you supply PROOF.

 

 

You are being most frustrating.

 

~moo

[foodchain]

"Unfortunately, the advantages of discrete models, which are receiving increasingly serious consideration from the scientific and philosophical communities, are outweighed by certain basic deficiencies. Not only do they exhibit scaling and nonlocality problems associated with their “display hardware”, but they are inadequate by themselves to generate the conceptual infrastructure required to explain the medium, device or array in which they evolve, or their initial states and state-transition programming. Moreover, they remain anchored in materialism, objectivism and Cartesian dualism, each of which has proven obstructive to the development of a comprehensive explanation of reality. Materialism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful nonmaterial aspect, objectivism arbitrarily excludes the possibility that reality has a meaningful subjective aspect, and although Cartesian dualism technically excludes neither, it arbitrarily denies that the mental and material, or subjective and objective, sides of reality share common substance.5"

 

This is from your link fred56. This whole paragraph needs to be destroyed to be honest, its pure junk science if even that, it might just be junk. Subjective views are not the same as objective views. Everyone has a subjective view of a multitude of things in life, even Hitler had a real bad one. Objective views are different in that regard, for the connect to the empirical or what is real outside of human thought. Its empirical that gravity exists, current hypothesis on such is subjective until otherwise proven empirically as objective. This field or what you call it is a massive hybrid that does have some good points such as the various separations of natural sciences that I see as a problem for lack of communication in regards to the idea that they all study nature. This problem though will not be solved by this theory.

 

I can appreciate the concept of reality theory, one that seeks to explain in detail what everything really is to the best of our abilities. I don’t see however how this can possibly work. First of all anything theological is outside of the scope of science period, it always will be as far as I know. You reference something super natural and in point the only way to make any verifications of something is using god of the gaps or god did it with no actual way to prove such, if you can counter this argument truly I would probably explode.

 

Maybe just maybe one of the problems with science currently is not a problem at all also. Zero in many operations is undefined, zero in reality means it does not exist in many cases. Case point, caveman had zero understanding of the microwave oven. Maybe science just does not know everything yet but is a gradual process. I want to know everything, i honestly do, I don’t see this as a viable route to such from its stated structure and function.

[fripro]

If anyone's interested in the logic, or what I call the logicalism, behind some of it, this from the 'International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design'.

http://www.ctmu.net/

 

]Thanks Fred and interesting approach FRIPRO [unquote]

[mooeypoo]

MOO, Read my book on line now. The address was given very earlier in this thread .I do not want to place it here as it is against the rules. Beiieve you me there is infatic proof that the ether (Aether) exist. Until you read it , please we are going no where. I can not prover it in this string and you know it.

And you can't put up a few points on it here? You don't have to paste the entire thing to give a brief summary of your points...

 

 

I really appreciate your time and questions and they are valid ones. How ever man in general know very little about the Universe, and I only its servant, its hands do what we are programmed to do. FRIPRO.

This means nothing... man knows a *LOT* about the universe. Not all, perhaps, but we do QUITE WELL with what we have. Quite frankly, you are suggesting we drop everything we know and replace it with oyur theory, and I don't see why we should bother yet... what questions is your theory answering that the current theories *aren't* answering??

 

I don't SEE intelligence in the universe, quite frankly. I see random phenomena with a set of physical rules (Astrophysics has most of the answers, and at the very least a VERY GOOD set of rules how to get more answers). What you are proposing seems to me to be completely unneeded, before the fact that it's not substantiated at ALL.

 

And Fripro, I wouldn't thank Fred56 yet:

 

International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) is a non-profit professional society devoted to promoting intelligent design.[1] The Society rejects evolution and seeks to undermine its teaching and alter the scientific method to eliminate what it sees as its materialistic, naturalistic, reductionistic and hence science's atheistic underpinnings.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Society_for_Complexity,_Information_and_Design)

 

The Executive Director of this group - William A. Dembski - is a creationist.

William Albert "Bill" Dembski (born July 18, 1960) is an American mathematician, philosopher, theologian and proponent of intelligent design in opposition to the theory of evolution through natural selection.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dembski)

 

It doesn't sound like it's something you should link yourself to.

 

 

 

~moo

[DrDNA]

Quote

""It is the Universe's mind's (ID), a short definition for the thinking mind of the Universe that is carrying out its work by directing live species everywhere, to do its bidding--through programming each individual's pre-stored information. When UIDE implants commands into individual minds, in their DNA or equivalent software, prior to (or even after) their birth, billions of humans and other species build together on these pre-programmed orders.

 

The Hubble telescope team has made an alarming discovery. It has focused on a distant cluster that has the form of a human DNA helix. (Of course it is not the human form) but it sure looks like a DNA helix through the Hubble space telescope. What does that imply? "" End Quote

 

It implies that if you look at the clouds long enough you might see a bunny rabbit or two. BTW, If it is "not the human form", what form is it?

........

...........

Quote

""On a recent broadcast at the program Coast to Coast with George Norway, a guest said: that if DNA is recovered from a person and placed at a distant location, and that same person has an emotional response to some stimuli, the measuring of vibrations of the DNA responded. If this is true, there may be an answer to instantaneous information being transmitted over a long distance. I prefer to think long and hard about this. ""

End Quote

But its not true. Its George Norway Coast to Coast.

 

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[mooeypoo]

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

A reading of chapter 1: "The Scientific Controversy". Particularly, reading of #1:

"Does the Universe have an ether atmosphere (dark matter, dark energy, particles)?"

-----

Note: Please notice the repeating "theme" here. Specifically the bright RED theme. I marked it bold red for you to notice. Please. Pretty please.

-----

The Universe is immense beyond all imagination of individual humans on Earth. One can see in the deep space photograph by NASA an obvious tilting of the galaxies at many different angles. This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent globe. This globe probably is rotating; however, because of its size, perception of the rotational movement on Earth, in our Milky Way galaxy, is impossible to measure. Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe? My guess is in the outer shell of the globe through which we are now looking, the shell being very thick but transparent to various frequencies of radiation infra red (UV, visual light, X rays, gamma rays, micro waves, radio waves, etc).

 

You are not being scientific. You are jumping from an unproven hypothesis to a claim and to a theory, stating "Ah! then it's true." The point, however, is that if your FIRST claim is unproven, then the rest of your theory - that is built upon it - is void.

 

Here's YOUR logic and how it is illogical:

1. "This seems to infer that some background galaxies are on the surface of a transparent globe."
    
   Not necessarily.. The universe is seen in three dimentions. How is the tilt of random galaxies proof of GLOBE is beyond me. You can't make a claim and just DECIDE it's true. Prove your statements.
    
    
   
2. "This globe probably is rotating; however, because of its size, perception of the rotational movement on Earth, in our Milky Way galaxy, is impossible to measure."
   You already decided it's a globe (without PROVING it), now you continue to state what you seem to think is obvious, and is COMPLETELY NOT. Rotating!? Why!? Because that's what you know from earth? Earth's rotation is due to external forces (gravity / orbit / etc).. why would the universe -- EVEN if it is globular -- rotate? Prove your statements.
   
3. "Of course the Hubble camera was looking in one direction, so where are we with respect to the globe?"
   Of Course. Are you so sure it's a globe? Prove your statements.
   

 

Observation of the red shift exhibited less red shift than expected, indicating that the expansion of the Universe across the globe's surface is speeding up. It also implies that the Universe is rotating. A rotating Universe would be gyroscopic, the source of gravity ,g, on Earth. (Refer to Chapter 26). Where are the galaxies of the Universe going? (Refer to the red shift in the distant white dwarf supernova, SN 1997ff, as a bright nova next to the yellow galaxy at the lower left of the above photo.)

 

Egh. This is painful. Okay, the red shift shows how fast the specific celestial object is moving away from us. It does *NOT* show curvature of space. It does *NOT* imply rotation. How.. would this imply rotation!?

Prove your statements.

 

There appears to be an area in the center of this photo (left to right) that is dark. What this means is important; however, I am not sure of the results of this observation.

I don't see it...?

 

While galaxies expand across its surface in all directions, the see-through effect might indicate galaxies are farther away than the foreground surface because they reside on the opposite side of the orb-like formation. The various tilts of the galactic plane may indicate that the galaxies pictured reside across the entire circumference of the Universe's globe-like formation.

You lost me.. what see-through effect? The "blank" spot you claim the picture has? I don't see an empty place in the picture; and an empty spot wouldn't have suggested what you claim, but.. since I don't even see it, I guess I can't begin to claim THAT.. yet..

 

Your claims jump from one assumption to the next, with NO SUBSTANTIATION. You make a claim - that's IT. "it may indicate" and then you rely on what it *may* indicate. Without saying WHY you think this is what it TRULY indicates.

 

You are NOT providing proofs, you are simply repeating your ideas.

 

So, please. Prove your statements.

 

 

NASA's Office of Space Science published in The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:

 

Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics–especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified.

Yes, of course scientists are HESITANT! They require *proof* in order to change the existing theories, because the existing theories *work well*.

 

If I would tell you that gravity is bunk, and instead there's a little invisible lepricon pushing down on objects causing them to fall, scientists would be HESITANT TO CHANGE the theory of gravity! But when Einstein changed the theory of gravity from Newton's idea, scientists were HESITANTS, but CHANGED.

 

Do you even know what the scientific method is? You seem to not quite understand empirical methods. or Inference methods.

 

Now, then you just go on to state that Einstein may have been wrong (which is more than possible, considering the fact Quantum Mechanicts and the Theory of Relativity don't fit much), but you supply ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF as to why *your theory* answers that paradox.

 

this, however, is a gem:

 

The Universe's atmosphere is a mixture of many other radiations and gases such as plasma, dust particles, ice, and many chemical mixtures, depending where one measures. But the basic particles of Newton's ether (perhaps dark matter) is the WIT particle. This is the atmosphere light waves navigate. Radiation photons cannot navigate empty space; they must have a medium to traverse. The WIT particle may make up the elusive dark matter to which so many scientist have referred.

WHAT UNIVERSE ATMOSPHERE!?

 

You just decided -- out of nowhere! -- that the universe has an atmosphere.

 

Prove your statements.

 

 

I am going to stop now, because this is giving me a headache. I did read the rest of the chapter but I have no patience to write it up here, seriously. You have absolutely no proofs or evidence for NOTHING. It's ridiculous.

 

Seeing as my attempts to get you to supply evidence failed, allow me to try a new method here, something I pick up from my other hobby - programming. I feel like I'm talking on a loop anyways:

while (evidence<=0) {
     echo "SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS!";
}

 

In short, and in plain english -- 'till you supply evidence (EMPIRICAL evidence, or OBSERVATIONAL *evidence*) and step-by-step explanations for your wild assumptions, I am NOT going to take this seriously. When you do, I promise to think about it seriously.

 

Deal?

 

~moo

[Fred56]

He didn't see the sucker punch (he he he...).

[fripro]

Fred your are a breath of fresh air. Moo did read part of my book, (and I give him great credit for his effort) the theoretical part, but it was not the area of the main issue he brought and infatically said, There is no ether (Aether) atmosphere of the Universe--in so many words.

 

I would hope some one would help keep him on tract of his argument. I grant him that the long quote from my book about the Universe dementions etc. is speculative and is my own opinion based on study of Hubbles photos and other satilites input.

 

How ever there is a chapter on the Math calculations of the ether partical's mass in grams, and it was calculated from the equations of DeBorgle, Einstine, and Planck. There is no argument on the results which give the mathetical proof of the ether's particle's existance, and through Planks length, the density of the ether particle that permits ultraviolet light to traverse between bodies in the Universe at the velocity of UV light.

 

Thanks again for giving me the chance to speak to all on the forumn. Sincerely FRIPRO

 

I

[mooeypoo]

"Her".

 

mooeypoo is a her

 

Fred your are a breath of fresh air.

Friend, he just equated you to CREATIONISTS.. are you even reading the links supplied??

 

Moo did read part of my book, (and I give him great credit for his effort)

"her"

the theoretical part, but it was not the area of the main issue he brought and infatically said, There is no ether (Aether) atmosphere of the Universe--in so many words.

You didn't even BEGIN to prove that there's an Ether, or Aether, or any sort or kind of atmosphere to the universe. What, exactly, am I missing? You just stated that there IS an atmosphere and based your theory on it. That's not science, it's wishful thinking.

 

 

I would hope some one would help keep him on tract of his argument. I grant him that the long quote from my book about the Universe dementions etc. is speculative and is my own opinion based on study of Hubbles photos and other satilites input.

 

HER, and aparanly I'm not the only one. You, however, don't READ the claims I put up. Why won't you start by going ONE BY ONE and answering my post? That would be a good start. Notice I put up "prove your arguments" quite a LOT; you haven't proved ANYTHING - not here, and not in your book.

 

Stop condecending. I am not stupid. I am putting more time than what I normally allow myself to put on a quite seriously FLAWED set of arguments, and I do that so we can keep debating. If you keep avoiding my points and keep preaching your dogmatic no-proof ideas, you will get nowhere.

 

How ever there is a chapter on the Math calculations of the ether partical's mass in grams, and it was calculated from the equations of DeBorgle, Einstine, and Planck.

 

Holy hell. Alright listen very carefully:

 

Before you can show what a particle of the aether's mass is, you need to prove that the particle EXISTS.

 

That's first step. First you prove it exists. Then you calculate mass. Then you do whatever you want with that particle, and keep infering and hypothesizing.

 

If you just CLAIM there is a particle, then calculating its MASS is insanely void. It's ridiculous!

 

 

There is no argument on the results which give the mathetical proof of the ether's particle's existance, and through Planks length, the density of the ether particle that permits ultraviolet light to traverse between bodies in the Universe at the velocity of UV light.

PROVE IT EXISTS FIRST.

 

I can show mathematically that the nose of the invisible unicorn is 14 inches long. That makes absolutely no friggin sense unless I prove the unicorn exists, and that it has a nose.

 

Understand?

 

Thanks again for giving me the chance to speak to all on the forumn. Sincerely FRIPRO

 

You still fail to make any sort of point. Please read my post and try to answer point by point and bring at the very least a SUMMARY (points!) of your PROOFS.

 

PROOFS. Not claims, not wishful thinking... PROOF.

 

Please. You're very frustrating. I'm trying to understand and think about what you're saying, and you are ignoring any and every request for proof.

 

It's not SCIENCE without a PROOF.

 

 

~moo

[fripro]

I stand corrected--I hope she (you) reads my quote to Fred and coments on the Book Universe's Inteligent Design via Evolution math equations, proof of the ether particle mass in grams existance, and it function to carry the mass waves of light photons.

[mooeypoo]

I stand corrected--I hope she (you) reads my quote to Fred and coments on the Book Universe's Inteligent Design via Evolution math equations, proof of the ether particle mass in grams existance, and it function to carry the mass waves of light photons.

 

Stop preaching and start answering questions. I'm not going to waste my time reading the entire book if you can't even answer the most BASIC questions I ask about the FIRST CHAPTER!

 

Please. If you want to be taken seriously, substantiate your claims. It shouldn't be a problem to post a BRIEF summary of PROOFS for the existence of Ether. You can't SERIOUSLY expect people to read through the entire book and sift through it to find your proofs.

 

If you don't have them straight before your assumption that it exists, something's either wrong with your theory, or wrong with your writing style. Be concise, it's part of being scientific.

 

~moo

[fripro]

I stand corrected--I hope she (you) reads my quote to Fred and coments on the Book Universe's Inteligent Design via Evolution math equations, proof of the ether particle mass in grams existance, and it function to carry the mass waves of light photons.

 

For reference I recommend the forum (who readers up to now did not coment on the subject,however are very interested in the subject) log on to the URL http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS/Samples/Cerenkov.ram

 

This is a fantasic video and sound of MASS/WAVE action in any (ANY) medium.This includes the Universe's ether (Aether) FRIPRO

[mooeypoo]

Why do you insist on giving me more and more arguments?

 

Clearly, you have no proof. You keep ignoring the request to SUPPLY IT.

 

I don't need more explanations on your TERMS, I need more PROOF!

 

The video doesn't prove ether, it explains Cerenkov Radiation. Light *can pass through vacuum*. It doesn't require a MEDIUM to travel through. Ether is not necessary for the passing of light "waves".

Furthermore, and for the thirtieth time, Aether was proven NOT TO EXIST. Through experimentation.

 

NOT. TO. EXIST.

 

If you want to claim it does exist you need to PROVE it, and then explain why the experiment proving it wrong resulted the way it did.

 

 

 

I'm dropping this stupidity, for reasons of noncooperative debate.

 

Have a nice day.

[ParanoiA]

And iNow's prediction comes pathetically true...

 

Fripro - a forum is for YOU to make arguments and for YOU to supply evidence. You are just a spammer when you provide links without engaging in discussion and debate - honest engagement.

 

As if you don't already know this...

[mooeypoo]

Here's a link for you, fripro, from the forum rules:

 

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

and this, of course, where the link is taken from: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24349

 

You seem to fill the entire set of conditions... kudos on the effort, i guess.

 

quackaduck.

 

~moo