There are no  takers on my questions. They have all ran away and are hiding and consoling each other against that "brute" GoodScienceForYou, who attacks thier religion with logic and reason.

This is the question that they cannot answer. I got tired of them continually sidestepping and not answering this question so I put it in large type:

Where is your absolute evidence for evolution, that is irrefutable and has no other plausibilities and has no human emotional mental garbage beliefs and opinions in it?

Here is the thing.  These Evodelusionists will continue to put down, fight, argue and show that other people are wrong who promote unproven ideas to the world as science.

If they can they will continue, until you defeat them. When you defeat them, they run.  They will tell people that your site needs to be riduculed and avoided without mentioning the content or how to find the site. 

This site is already moving up on google and yahoo by natural numbers of links coming to and from this site.

This is because it is growing pretty fast in the number of readers.  And each and every person who reconizes this as a way to get free of delusions will promote this site.

If this site were to have "good" effects on the religious belief in Evodelusionism, the religion of evolutionists, then the evodelusinoists would be promoting it.  What the do is to try to stop talking about it, and to stop recommending it.

If it was not detrimental to Evodelusionism, meaning that it supports their beliefs, by being inaccurate of the facts, then they would be dropping money in the till to support this, of they would be recommending it to all of their friends.

Instead they have never met a real scientist before, so they can't dismiss anything I teach.

If what I teach is detrimental to the opponents to Evodelusionism then they would also support it. 

This is because what we teach is NEUTRAL and is not based on any beliefs.  It is only based on facts.

Hi,

I don't think they have run away. I think some of them are disappointed in not being heard. Some of them have come up with some descent arguments, and I feel they need to be taken seriously and argued rationally against, not calling them stupid delusional people. People will not take that for very long, and they seek other sites to discuss instead. Here I feel they are not taken seriously, and they meet no understanding at all. I think some of the attacks on this site have been ineffective, and I feel that there are better arguments against evolution. You cannot expect people to come here and discuss evolution and not be heard. There should be a rational discussion and people must be taken seriously, because obviously many people that have been here are intelligent and propose good arguments for their case. You have never considered their arguments seriously and tried to discuss against them - they have been dismissed without further thought. People didn't run away, they are just sick of not being heard at all, and then they loose faith in you because they see that you don't even consider their arguments. You do not even consider my arguments in physics, which is my field of expertise, and I know quite a lot about it. You simply dismissed everything I had to say, and I have to admit that it doesn't come out as reliable or trustworthy. When I do not feel that my VALID arguments are heard or argued against, I also feel that there are no reason to be here. Because I know for a FACT that my arguments considering physics are valid and strong. When I proposed my arguments, I was only met with "it's a law", without ever showing why it's a law. Then it is a waste of time and useless to argue further. I mean - you may very well have good points yourself, and you may be right about many of your conclusions, but when I see that you do not understand my arguments in my field of expertise and dismiss everything I have to say, you loose credibility in all your other arguments in for example evolution. It makes me unsure if you are just as dismissive for good arguments for evolution, and I have already gone to another forum which discuss evolution - to learn and see the arguments for and against evolution being understood and taken seriously. Some people there even admit when they are wrong, even if it goes against what they believe is true about evolution (and other sciences). Of course some people are also not admitting when they are wrong, but there are nice discussions going on and I learn a lot about evolution, which I sat down just a few months ago to learn more about. I do not know much about evolution yet, and what they have to say, but I see some problems in information theory which I would like an answer to.

metha wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 5:17am:

Hi, I don't think they have run away. I think some of them are disappointed in not being heard. Some of them have come up with some descent arguments, and I feel they need to be taken seriously and argued rationally against, not calling them stupid delusional people. People will not take that for very long, and they seek other sites to discuss instead. Here I feel they are not taken seriously, and they meet no understanding at all. I think some of the attacks on this site have been ineffective, and I feel that there are better arguments against evolution. You cannot expect people to come here and discuss evolution and not be heard. There should be a rational discussion and people must be taken seriously, because obviously many people that have been here are intelligent and propose good arguments for their case. You have never considered their arguments seriously and tried to discuss against them - they have been dismissed without further thought. People didn't run away, they are just sick of not being heard at all, and then they loose faith in you because they see that you don't even consider their arguments. You do not even consider my arguments in physics, which is my field of expertise, and I know quite a lot about it. You simply dismissed everything I had to say, and I have to admit that it doesn't come out as reliable or trustworthy. When I do not feel that my VALID arguments are heard or argued against, I also feel that there are no reason to be here. Because I know for a FACT that my arguments considering physics are valid and strong. When I proposed my arguments, I was only met with "it's a law", without ever showing why it's a law. Then it is a waste of time and useless to argue further. I mean - you may very well have good points yourself, and you may be right about many of your conclusions, but when I see that you do not understand my arguments in my field of expertise and dismiss everything I have to say, you loose credibility in all your other arguments in for example evolution. It makes me unsure if you are just as dismissive for good arguments for evolution, and I have already gone to another forum which discuss evolution - to learn and see the arguments for and against evolution being understood and taken seriously. Some people there even admit when they are wrong, even if it goes against what they believe is true about evolution (and other sciences). Of course some people are also not admitting when they are wrong, but there are nice discussions going on and I learn a lot about evolution, which I sat down just a few months ago to learn more about. I do not know much about evolution yet, and what they have to say, but I see some problems in information theory which I would like an answer to.

I have read and heard all they have submitted and none of it is evidence for evolution.  It is only evidence for the belief.

If they had any real evidence they would have submitted it.

The evidence against evolution is pretty strong.

If they are not delusional, then the need to produce the real physical evidence.  This crap needs to be removed from science, just like all religions need to be removed from science classrooms in order to make the schools fair and free of all mythological religions and any religion.  I want science to just be about seeking the truth in the physical world.

As for the "poor" Evodelusionists, I have been fair with them, but they have not been fair with me and started with the insults and hate as is their normal when they are given questions they know they can't answer.
I answered all of their questions, but they never answer mine. 

As soon as they started posting lies on here, they are giving me permission to attack their integrity.

The one about raw carbon being the same as a diamond is just ridiculous.

If your physics denies the foundational laws of science of cause and effect, which is the law of science, then it is not a valid concept.

If you take it out of the physical then it is no longer science.

IF you look at my videos on falsification of this you will see that they use genetics as the handle of the basket to support a whole pile of religious nonsense.

Typically, when someone wants to indoctrinate, they use some observable truth as in genetics then pile on the bovine crap on top.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_5CJzKB9b4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--Frypeg00

Quote:

If your physics denies the foundational laws of science of cause and effect, which is the law of science, then it is not a valid concept.

Of course, but my physics does not deny any physical laws. You say that "cause and effect" is a scientific law, but it is not. Where is your proof of that? You are bounded to classical physics, and already in 1905 classical physics was adjusted with Einstein. Just stating that I am wrong because you say so, is simply not enough.

About falsification; you say that there is no such thing as falsification in science, but this destroys you completely, because I know it is in physics and even in mathematics. To falsify something is easy (if it is false), but to prove something is impossible. If you do not see that, I loose all credibility for whatever you say. This is not a scientific law, but a logical tautology.

metha wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:03pm:

Quote: If your physics denies the foundational laws of science of cause and effect, which is the law of science, then it is not a valid concept. Of course, but my physics does not deny any physical laws. You say that "cause and effect" is a scientific law, but it is not. Where is your proof of that? You are bounded to classical physics, and already in 1905 classical physics was adjusted with Einstein. Just stating that I am wrong because you say so, is simply not enough. About falsification; you say that there is no such thing as falsification in science, but this destroys you completely, because I know it is in physics and even in mathematics. To falsify something is easy (if it is false), but to prove something is impossible. If you do not see that, I loose all credibility for whatever you say. This is not a scientific law, but a logical tautology.

There is absolutely nothing in physical science that breaks the law of cause and effect.  Cause and effect IS science. Don't you know that?

Show me where cause and effect is not used.

metha wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 5:17am:

Hi, You cannot expect people to come here and discuss evolution and not be heard. There should be a rational discussion and people must be taken seriously, because obviously many people that have been here are intelligent and propose good arguments for their case.

I have opened up this forum to all Evodelusionists, people who believe in the theory of evolution.  They just have nothing to offer that would even suggest evolution.


Please show me one person who has presented any evidence that is not only supported by belief and opinion?

Anyone who believes in this pseudo science is to be ridiculed until they have some real evidence to support their beliefs.

I have been ridiculed like mad, and that does not stop me because I am extremely intelligent and have no religion, and have studied this longer than most of the evodelusionsists who come on here or who attack me on you tube.

You cannot stop the truth about messed up beliefs.  It is obvious that you cannot and none of the evodelusionsists have any physical evidence that supports this ridiculous pseudo science.

There is a reason why there is no evidence, because there is none.  I have looked read and I have not had the disgusting pleasure of allowing myself to be brainwashed by social structures of academia, notoriously controlled by pop cultural religious beliefs.

I suggest that you show me absolute compelling evidence that shows evolution with no other plausibility and I will set you straight fast.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 5:55pm:

There is absolutely nothing in physical science that breaks the law of cause and effect.  Cause and effect IS science. Don't you know that?

This just proves my point, doesn't it?



Quote:

I suggest that you show me absolute compelling evidence that shows evolution with no other plausibility and I will set you straight fast.

Why on earth would I do that?

I love all people, my methods are just different.  I don't treat egotistical people who are educated into ignorance with respect, because they are stupid and they are breaking the laws of science and never use the scientific methods in their fantasies.  When I attack ignorance, and belief, "religious nonsense", these people are going to resort to defensive methods.  You cannot go against the truth and call it science. 

In every event, chemical reaction, organic breeding process, disease, physical event and biological process, there is cause and effect.   Those causes and effect have only one way they took place or could take place under those exact circumstances. This is the truth of the matter. This is what we seek to find in science; the truth on the causes and the results.   You are looking for that event, not some fantasy and not seeing the actual obvious and clear truth if you are deeply believing in nonsense.

The event is not the problem, the observer is.   The event has a truth about what took place, and if you are not seeking that truth, then what are you seeking? 

These fools are educated with such deep brainwashing that it is hard to think there is any objective awareness in any of them. The brainwashing is the problem, because it causes them to think that science follows the religion, and not the other way.  Science follows what actually happens and should never project any religious beliefs on the events.

The truth is beyond all religions that I have studied. 

These Evodelusion believers just project fantasy on the physical world and make up ridiculous conclusions on things they really know nothing about, like DNA.  It is ridiculous and obvious to think that DNA is the bottom line on genetic science. DNA is a result of causes they can't see.

They attribute mystical causes to DNA.  And because this is all new, they "go to town" projecting nonsense on evidence.

Which one of Einstein's premises have been proven or tested and always work?

The point is science has gotten off track by accepting things that are not scientific and  do not pertain to this time and space.  They have taken science to a new level of delusion and they think they are the smart ones.

Falsification was accepted into science as a political way to perpetuate beliefs that cannot be falsified, because you can't test for fantasy as in evodelusionism;  You cannot falsify a religion, so magical, mythological religion has taken over science.  Falsification is the only thing that is false in science.  It never works on fantasy that can't be tested.

When you are dealing with physical reality, any thing that you can see, or examine they all operate on cause and effect.

The "box" of the physical universe operates on fixed laws.  When those laws operate outside of your ability to perceive them, don't make up ideas like "random" or "mystical causes".

Those laws are obvious.  I have studied this since I was 8 years old and they never fail under these conditions of being on earth as we know it now. We do not know what these laws were like before the earth was "finished" or from our perspective in this time and space that we think is so real.   


If any of those laws were to not work, we all die, the earht falls apart.  This is well known with physicists.  You try taking away any foundation of science and see if life goes on.

For instance, time is linear, until you are in a different "box". 

The final conclusion is they have run away, because they know they can't answer my  question.  Anyone who would realize that question is not possible to answer will run to protect their beliefs.  They will attack me and try to discredit me.  To me they are insane for believing in things that have no evidence. The political pressure to conform to this new religion is intense. You are destroyed in science if you don't believe.  That is pretty sick, and it retards any real science.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:

I love all people, my methods are just different.  I don't treat egotistical people who are educated into ignorance with respect

That is fine with me, but then don't call yourself a teacher, because 50% of being a teacher is about pedagogy.



Quote:

In every event, chemical reaction, organic breeding process, disease, physical event and biological process, there is cause and effect.

Prove it.


Quote:

Which ones of Einsteins premises have been proven or tested an always work?

Relativity of time has never been falsified. The cosmic constant he introduced, however, seems to be incorrect.


Quote:

Falsification was accepted into science as a political way to perpetuate beliefs that cannot be falsified

All scientists, inluding Einstein (who was not the best scientist ever, as many believe), worked with falsification and adjusting existing theories.


Quote:

Those laws are obvious.

No laws are obvious. You need to do heavy testing to confirm equations that describe the universe. A law is ALWAYS described with an equation. A law is NEVER stated as "cause and effect". the sentence "cause and effect" is not scientific and it does not explain anything. It is not precise. The sentence "cause and effect" is philosophy, not science.


Quote:

I have studied this since I was 8 years old and they never fail under these conditions of being on earth as we know it now.

First of all, this is not an argument. I was 4 years old when I corrected my older brothers homework. He was mad at me for pointing out an error. I don't remember it, but my father told me about it. I was 6 years old when my father asked me to go through his calculations for his business. He laughed very well when I discovered an error with his division.


Quote:

I any of those laws were to not work, we all die, the earht falls apart.

Prove it.


Quote:

This is well known with physicists.

 

I have read many more papers and book on physics than you, and I never came across this statement.



Quote:

For instance, time is linear, until you are in a different "box".

Time is not linear. That has been falsified by Einstein.


Quote:

The final conclusion is they have run away

I have no idea where they are. But you don't either.



Now let us discuss cause and effect. If you take the integral over time for the wave function in 4 variables, say the event space from a to b, what do you get? Take that answer and plug it into the wave function of e^(2*pi*x/phi), where phi denotes the euler totient. You knopw how to perform the fouirier series after the laplace transformation, and tell me that this isn't random. Prove it. 

metha wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 12:40pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 9th, 2010 at 12:16pm: I love all people, my methods are just different.  I don't treat egotistical people who are educated into ignorance with respect That is fine with me, but then don't call yourself a teacher, because 50% of being a teacher is about pedagogy.

GoodScienceForYou said: I don't follow any guidelines for teaching, except that the student is their own teacher as I have been to myself by needing absolute evidence and nothing else will do.  All I really do is ask the questions the student needs to have answers for.  The truth is inside of you, not out side. There is no human emotional complicated garbage that will take you to the truth.  False students seek complicated human bovine feculence.

People who just lay down to false authority are not real to me.  At my levels of understanding, I don't have patience with false students.  Only true students can learn. Those who are already "hardened" into beliefs and false premises don't seem to have the ability to learn, because they are closed minded.
[/quote]



Quote:

In every event, chemical reaction, organic breeding process, disease, physical event and biological process, there is cause and effect.

Prove it.[/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said: This is like saying that when you wake up you become aware of being awake.  It is on the same level  of foundational truth.  Truth is self evident, requires no explanation, and at the base or root of knowledge.  It is life itself. If you have been taught out of this, then you need to get back to where "self evident" is what you need to find, not some human belief system.  The foundation of science is cause and effect, or cause and result.  There is no physical science without this.  You can't be that limited. Who did this to you?[/quote]


Quote:

Which ones of Einsteins premises have been proven or tested an always work?

Relativity of time has never been falsified. The cosmic constant he introduced, however, seems to be incorrect. [/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said: This is not a scientific principle.  It is simply has no place in seeking the truth. Einstein's E=MC² has been shown to work in physics experiments that show no mass then mass on subatomic particles that are increased in speed. Are you aware of this experiment?

Listen again until you understand.
Falsification allows utter nonsense to continue in science. If you think that falsification is part of science then you don't really understand what seeking the truth is or what real science is.  We do not try to falsify anything in real science, we try to show that it works and only that it works.  If it shows no sign of being real, we drop the hypothesis or the theory as in this nonsense of Evodelusionism.

Falsification is the ridiculous nonsense of HEMG and the root cause of the illogical and idiotic problems in science created by it, and truthification is the reality of science.  You cannot have false and true in the same science as your goals.  Either you seek the truth, or you seek to perpetuate false beliefs.  Falsification allows ridiculous nonsense, religious concepts, like Evodelusion to continue.  If you can't test it and prove it in physical reality then it is not science.  Thee is no way to test this theory of fish evolving into humans.  Falsification is not science and has no place in science.  It is a socialist, communist principle to keep crap beliefs in science that cannot be tested. 

Since there is no way to test Evolution to see if it is real, nor is there any way to see if it is false, because you simply cannot test it with any scientific experiment.

Self evident is when you come home and find your wife with another man.  It is obvious and requires no conjecture.  Falsification comes when your wife says prove it to others and you are the only witness.  Scientists today are like the whore wife, confused and trying to validate their ridiculous, brainwashed, mythological nonsense. They are so far off track from seeking to find answers that I am compelled to try to help them.

If you want to be free of ridiculous nonsense you learn how to get to the base or root of everything.  Once you are at the root it is self evident and requires no conjecture and is irrefutable, obvious, and ultimately extremely simple.   Life is not so complex as you would like to think.  Einstein was like this in his approach, cutting to the root and then trying to explain it backwards to the masses.

What is obvious requires no explanation.  When you are in a web of nonsense, you need to get unscrewed to get to the level of reality.  A web of nonsense is what con artists use to create their magical mystical control over the masses in order to obtain power.   If you can't get what you want then baffle them with human emotional mental garbage, that is illogical but seems to make sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_5CJzKB9b4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4--Frypeg00[/quote]


Quote:

Falsification was accepted into science as a political way to perpetuate beliefs that cannot be falsified, because they cannot be tested with the scientific method.

All scientists, inluding Einstein (who was not the best scientist ever, as many believe), worked with falsification and adjusting existing theories.


Quote:

Those laws are obvious.

No laws are obvious. You need to do heavy testing to confirm equations that describe the universe. A law is ALWAYS described with an equation. A law is NEVER stated as "cause and effect". the sentence "cause and effect" is not scientific and it does not explain anything. It is not precise. The sentence "cause and effect" is philosophy, not science.[/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said:You have been taught wrong, because the people who taught you are wrong and believe this utter nonsense.  All functional math is based on cause and effect.  you put in the variables and they either work and are a "reflection of reality" or they don't work. Anything that is not a reflection of reality is not science.  If you are working in theoretical math and it does not fit any form of reality, what good is it?[/quote]


Quote:

I have studied this since I was 8 years old and they never fail under these conditions of being on earth as we know it now.

First of all, this is not an argument. I was 4 years old when I corrected my older brothers homework. He was mad at me for pointing out an error. I don't remember it, but my father told me about it. I was 6 years old when my father asked me to go through his calculations for his business. He laughed very well when I discovered an error with his division.


Quote:

I any of those laws were to not work, we all die, the earht falls apart.  Math is NOT science and science is not math!

Prove it.


Quote:

This is well known with physicists.

 

I have read many more papers and book on physics than you, and I never came across this statement.

[/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said:
Read it here:

It is self evident.   Remove "cause and effect" and you cease.
Remove "light" or radiation and you cease.  Remove chemical reactions and you cease.  Remove magnetism and you cease. Remove "polarity" and you cease. 

I thought you were smart.  You can find articles on this in scientific journals. 

I have met one other person who can do complex math in his head.  We used to study together back in 1968.  He taught me the principles of doing math in one's head.  I have a photographic memory and without that you really can't conceive of much of anything.  If you are without vision you can't see how science works.



Quote:

For instance, time is linear, until you are in a different "box".

Time is not linear. That has been falsified by Einstein.

[/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said:Time is only relative to a perceiver of time.  It does not exist separate from perception.  If you exist in the same time and space that I do, even your perceptions are not the same as mine.  A second of yours, is not a second of time to me.
It is only based upon a "shared" mechanism for measuring time, within the "box".  If you are outside that box, then time does not exist.  In the purest sense of time, it does not exist at all. When you are in this reality we have definition of time that only work in this shared reality. In absolute reality time does not exist, only an eternal NOW exists.  For practical purposes, without a perception of time, all is gone.


Quote:

The final conclusion is they, Evodelusionists, have run away

I have no idea where they are. But you don't either.



Now let us discuss cause and effect. If you take the integral over time for the wave function in 4 variables, say the event space from a to b, what do you get? Take that answer and plug it into the wave function of e^(2*pi*x/phi), where phi denotes the euler totient. You knopw how to perform the fouirier series after the laplace transformation, and tell me that this isn't random. Prove it.  [/quote]

GoodScienceForYou said:
That is theoretical math and does not pertain the the box that I live in, real testable physical science.  Basically it has nothing in common with reality.
You can take theoretical math and go nuts with it, prove things that can't be put into the physical,  but until you can prove it relates to absolute physical reality here and now, then it is worthless.  It is mental exercise and nothing more.  Clear?

Theoretical physics has never found much use.  It is not practical in any form that I have ever studied.  Mathematics is not science.  It is mathematics.  Science can use math for predictions in physics, but Math cannot always be used in science.

Can you explain one practical application of this?

"Now let us discuss cause and effect. If you take the integral over time for the wave function in 4 variables, say the event space from a to b, what do you get? Take that answer and plug it into the wave function of e^(2*pi*x/phi), where phi denotes the euler totient. You knopw how to perform the fouirier series after the laplace transformation, and tell me that this isn't random. Prove it."

This is not science, it is math and math does not always work in physical reality.  This is theoretical math. 

There is no random in the physical world.

What? This is not theoretical math. It is concrete physics - just as real as adding 2 apples with 2 apples and obtain 4 apples. Theoretical and abstract math is something else - axiomating. This is not axioms, but math that is used in many areas of science and physics. Now, instead of YET AGAIN just stating that you are right and everyone else wrong, why don't you attack what I said instead? Or do you not understand it?

metha wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 4:11am:

What? This is not theoretical math. It is concrete physics - just as real as adding 2 apples with 2 apples and obtain 4 apples. Theoretical and abstract math is something else - axiomating. This is not axioms, but math that is used in many areas of science and physics. Now, instead of YET AGAIN just stating that you are right and everyone else wrong, why don't you attack what I said instead? Or do you not understand it?

Show me exactly where this works with physical matter!

Show me the experiment using apples where this works?
It is theoretical math. There is nothing wrong with theoretical math, but it is not physics until you show the experiment.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 7:33am:

metha wrote on Jan 10th, 2010 at 4:11am: What? This is not theoretical math. It is concrete physics - just as real as adding 2 apples with 2 apples and obtain 4 apples. Theoretical and abstract math is something else - axiomating. This is not axioms, but math that is used in many areas of science and physics. Now, instead of YET AGAIN just stating that you are right and everyone else wrong, why don't you attack what I said instead? Or do you not understand it? Show me exactly where this works with physical matter! Show me the experiment using apples where this works? It is theoretical math. There is nothing wrong with theoretical math, but it is not physics until you show the experiment.

What happens to advanced physics students is they get into  theoretical physics that can be just fantasy.  The mind can create all sorts of possibilities, but when they are not translated into physical reality, then they are worthless.  They are just mental exercises and people try to validate their mental exercises by calling it physics. 

If you have no practical use or cannot show any experiment to validate your "math" then it is not applicable to physical science in any way.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 4:27pm:

This is not a scientific principle.  It is simply has no place in seeking the truth. Einstein's E=MC2 has been shown to work in physics experiments that show no mass then mass on subatomic particles that are increased in speed. Are you aware of this experiment?

Relativity of time is a scientific principle. You think that relativity of time amounts to the perceivers perception of time? Well then, my friend, you are not qualified to discuss this. E=MC^2 has nothing to do with relativity of time. That is just an equation, and is not THE foundation of Einsteins Relativity Theory at all. I am aware of most of the physics experiments performed in modern times.


Quote:

Falsification allows utter nonsense to continue in science. If you think that falsification is part of science then you don't really understand what seeking the truth is or what real science is.  We do not try to falsify anything in real science, we try to show that it works and only that it works.

I have explained this to you before. EVERY time we make an experiment, we are trying to falsify it. We cannot prove that the experiment will work EVERY time, but we can say that it most certainly will. However, if the experiment fails, we know that our hypothesis was wrong, and we need to adjust the hypothesis and perform new tests and experiments. This is how Einstein developed his theory.


Quote:

You have been taught wrong, because the people who taught you are wrong and believe this utter nonsense.  All functional math is based on cause and effect.  you put in the variables and they either work and are a "reflection of reality" or they don't work. Anything that is not a reflection of reality is not science.  If you are working in theoretical math and it does not fit any form of reality, what good is it?

All math is functional. There exist math that has no applications yet, but history shows that they become important and that they are applied. The math I showed you is NOT abstract, and it is easy and even math that has been known for over 100 years.


Quote:

You can find articles on this in scientific journals.

Of course, where else? Which journals do you have subscriptions to?


Quote:

I have met one other person who can do complex math in his head.  We used to study together back in 1968.  He taught me the principles of doing math in one's head.  I have a photographic memory and without that you really can't conceive of much of anything.  If you are without vision you can't see how science works.

I've worked with many mathematicians and all of them could do complex math in their head. However, it is of no use until they write it down formally so that it can be applied.


Quote:

Time is only relative to a perceiver of time.

This is where I understood that you do not understand. You have no understanding of Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. This is wrong.


Quote:

Show me exactly where this works with physical matter!

Good question! I like that part of you. I am talking about the event space and the wave function. Take the integral, as I said and look at the fourier series after performing a laplace transformation. The concrete application is on the event space, and you consider the time between a and b (with that I mean any time interval, of course). This is not abstract, but real, and it should be an easy task for you to figure it out.


Quote:

What happens to advanced physics students is they get into  theoretical physics that can be just fantasy.  The mind can create all sorts of possibilities, but when they are not translated into physical reality, then they are worthless.  They are just mental exercises and people try to validate their mental exercises by calling it physics.  If you have no practical use or cannot show any experiment to validate your "math" then it is not applicable to physical science in any way.

Well, this is not abstract, is it... How can it be more real than the event space over the wave function in a time intercal a to b?

metha wrote on Jan 11^th, 2010 at 1:46pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 9th, 2010 at 4:27pm: This is not a scientific principle.  It is simply has no place in seeking the truth. Einstein's E=MC2 has been shown to work in physics experiments that show no mass then mass on subatomic particles that are increased in speed. Are you aware of this experiment? Relativity of time is a scientific principle. You think that relativity of time amounts to the perceivers perception of time? Well then, my friend, you are not qualified to discuss this. E=MC^2 has nothing to do with relativity of time. That is just an equation, and is not THE foundation of Einsteins Relativity Theory at all. I am aware of most of the physics experiments performed in modern times. Quote: Falsification allows utter nonsense to continue in science. If you think that falsification is part of science then you don't really understand what seeking the truth is or what real science is.  We do not try to falsify anything in real science, we try to show that it works and only that it works. I have explained this to you before. EVERY time we make an experiment, we are trying to falsify it. We cannot prove that the experiment will work EVERY time, but we can say that it most certainly will. However, if the experiment fails, we know that our hypothesis was wrong, and we need to adjust the hypothesis and perform new tests and experiments. This is how Einstein developed his theory. [quote]You have been taught wrong, because the people who taught you are wrong and believe this utter nonsense.  All functional math is based on cause and effect.  you put in the variables and they either work and are a "reflection of reality" or they don't work. Anything that is not a reflection of reality is not science.  If you are working in theoretical math and it does not fit any form of reality, what good is it?

All math is functional. There exist math that has no applications yet, but history shows that they become important and that they are applied. The math I showed you is NOT abstract, and it is easy and even math that has been known for over 100 years.


Quote:

You can find articles on this in scientific journals.

Of course, where else? Which journals do you have subscriptions to?


Quote:

I have met one other person who can do complex math in his head.  We used to study together back in 1968.  He taught me the principles of doing math in one's head.  I have a photographic memory and without that you really can't conceive of much of anything.  If you are without vision you can't see how science works.

I've worked with many mathematicians and all of them could do complex math in their head. However, it is of no use until they write it down formally so that it can be applied.


Quote:

Time is only relative to a perceiver of time.

This is where I understood that you do not understand. You have no understanding of Einstein and his Theory of Relativity. This is wrong.


Quote:

Show me exactly where this works with physical matter!

Good question! I like that part of you. I am talking about the event space and the wave function. Take the integral, as I said and look at the fourier series after performing a laplace transformation. The concrete application is on the event space, and you consider the time between a and b (with that I mean any time interval, of course). This is not abstract, but real, and it should be an easy task for you to figure it out.


Quote:

What happens to advanced physics students is they get into  theoretical physics that can be just fantasy.  The mind can create all sorts of possibilities, but when they are not translated into physical reality, then they are worthless.  They are just mental exercises and people try to validate their mental exercises by calling it physics.  If you have no practical use or cannot show any experiment to validate your "math" then it is not applicable to physical science in any way.

Well, this is not abstract, is it... How can it be more real than the event space over the wave function in a time intercal a to b? [/quote]

E=MC² requires time.  I find it funny that he makes the most important equation of his life and it requires time. Then you tell me that he does not believe in time?

Again, where is the experiment that shows this in physics, in the real world?

You do not understand falsification and its purpose to keep unprovable theories around.  It has made a circus of science.

I suggest that you stop believing in your teachers and all that has come before you and actually seek to find the reality of any of this nonsense.

I suggest that you read this post again and again, until you understand, otherwise you will just be a person owned by other people's misguided ideas.

http://evolutionforum.info/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1259526207

Never believe anyone, not even me, no authority, no matter how much you love and respect them, no teacher, no scripture, nothing, until you can see it is real for yourself.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 11^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

E=MC2 requires time.  I find it funny that he makes the most important equation of his life and it requires time. Then you tell me that he does not believe in time?

Look, e=mc^2 is an identity.It has little to do with time.

Where did I say that Einstein doesn't believe in time? It makes no sense. This is science, so belief has nothing to do with it. If you do not know what Einstein meant with the relativity of time (scientifically), then we do not have anything to talk about when it comes to physics. I would be happy to explain it to you, if you want. There is no shame in not knowing what Einstein said about time, because most people do not understand it. Just ask, and I would be more than happy to give you an idea.


Quote:

Again, where is the experiment that shows this in physics, in the real world?

You know what the event space is, don't you? Then you know the experiment too. If you need me to set the time interval for you, lets say [0,1]. Then you have a concrete experiment.


Quote:

You do not understand falsification and its purpose to keep unprovable theories around.  It has made a circus of science.

Every experiment is also falsification. Easy example: Newton's law of gravity, where an object falls to the ground with an acceleration of 9,81. Take a rock, drop it and measure the height and time. If the acceleration was 9,81, we confirmed Newton's law. We didn't prove it, since we in theory can get different results later. If the acceleration was not 9,81, we falsified Newton's law. This is falsification, and I understand it very well. My last paper in physics falsified my own hypothesis.


Quote:

I suggest that you stop believing in your teachers and all that has come before you and actually seek to find the reality of any of this nonsense.

I do not have any teachers. I do not go to school. Been a while. If I do not learn from others, I have to start from the very beginning, and it would take a life-time before I could start doing any research and I would be dead before I could publish any papers.


Quote:

I suggest that you read this post again and again, until you understand, otherwise you will just be a person owned by other people's misguided ideas.

I suggest you read what I write to you, give it a thought and try to understand it. If you do understand it, then I do not require that you tell it to me that I was right, but you can go back to real life and acknowledge what you have learned. You can maybe tell me things about evolution (I don't know much about it yet, but I just started to read and learn about it), but I can tell you things about physics.

Just one question before you answer the post above. Do you mean that when Einstein said "time is relative", he meant that it is relative to the perceiver? For example, did he mean that when you're having fun, time seems to go faster. Is that what he meant in your opinion?

Anytime you have multiplication/division, it involves time, and a process that can only be in a time frame.

Time standards are for this time that we have in common, measured by a process. 

If time were to be in constant flux, you would never notice it.

I don't think you understand what Einstein's work was about.
That is what I think.  The universe is held together by structures that we cannot comprehend.  Einstein acutally fell into this equation, by accident and originally, even he thougth it had a different meaning. 

Life is supported by pure energy. That energy becomes mass, when contracted and sped up.  M= E/C²
That means that mass is energy contracted and held by the speed of light squared.

Mass is Energy moving at the speed of light.  If there is no time structures there is no mass.  Time is a major structure of the universe.   That is why it is called time AND space.

You are all screwed up on falsification.   It implys that you don't have to test anything to see if if works or not in order to perpetuate it until it is falsified.  You cannot falsifiy anything absolutely that you cannot test. And you can't falsify anything if you can't find the one time that it may work.  So it leaves things that are utterly worthless and based on belief in your mind.  Falsification is the only thing that is 100% false in science. PERIOD.  You need to listen to what I am teaching you, if you want to be free to find the truth in science. The only thing that counts in science is positive results for the hypothesis. The more positive results the more likely the theory is true.  If all the results show as evidence of the theory, then it becomes law.  Theory is not even usable in science if it has no way to test if it works at all.  "Truthification" is real science. Falsification is a way to perpetuate belief.   

If you can't test a theory, like Evodelusion, then it sets around like a lead balloon in the minds of delusional people.

"I do not have any teachers. I do not go to school. Been a while. If I do not learn from others, I have to start from the very beginning, and it would take a life-time before I could start doing any research and I would be dead before I could publish any papers."

I did not say anything about not having teachers, just don't believe them, until you can prove this to yourself. 

Real physics works within the constraints of where the matter at hand exists.  If you take it out of that box of existence, then you have another set of laws.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 9:51am:

Anytime you have multiplication/division, it involves time, and a process that can only be in a time frame.

4 apples divided on 2 children is 2 apples each.

When I say that e=mc^2 is not about time, I mean that it doesn't say anything about time. It is not central in the equation. f=ma, however, is.



Quote:

I don't think you understand what Einstein's work was about.

Lol, I don't understand what Einstein's work was about? And you can't answer me the simple question if Einstein meant that time was relative because of peoples perception of time?



Quote:

Life is supported by pure energy. That energy becomes mass, when contracted and sped up.  M= E/C2 That means that mass is energy contracted and held by the speed of light squared.

No. E=mc^2 is about an identity between mass and energy, and the equation is not really what we are talking about. The equation is just a small part of the theory, and it only became famous because it is easy to remember. There are far more important equations in the theory.


Quote:

Time is a major structure of the universe.

Of course it is, yes.


Quote:

That is why it is called time AND space.

No, it is called space-time because space and time are not separated as in classical physics.



Quote:

You are all screwed up on falsification.   It implys that you don't have to test anything to see if if works or not in order to perpetuate it until it is falsified.

No, it imples that you have to test everything, again and again and again.



Quote:

You cannot falsifiy anything absolutely that you cannot test. And you can't falsify anything if you can't find the one time that it may work.  So it leaves things that are utterly worthless and based on belief in your mind.

You can test and falsify everything that makes a claim about reality.


Quote:

Falsification is the only thing that is 100% false in science. PERIOD.

No. PERIOD.



Quote:

The more positive results the more likely the theory is true.

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely right. The more you test it, the more likely it is true. Perfect! That is EXACTLY what it's about. And when the test fail, the hypothesis was wrong.


Quote:

If all the results show as evidence of the theory, then it becomes law.

Aww, crap, wrong. If all the results? What is all? Can you make the test infinitely many times? No. So you cannot test ALL possibilities. But, as you said; the more we test the more likely the hypothesis is true.  

You have not answered any one of my questions, and I cannot learn anything from a person that cannot answer questions which are directly put forward. Some of the stuff you say is directly wrong, and that makes me understand that you don't. If you have read any scientific paper (particularly in physics), you know that falsification is the same as doing experiments.

"You know what the event space is, don't you? Then you know the experiment too. If you need me to set the time interval for you, lets say [0,1]. Then you have a concrete experiment."

Mathmatics is not science. Science is not Math.

The idea that everything in math is translatable to this time and space is not real.  This fourier series always works with wave forms and wave forms are linear and not random, but are generated by electric current in the physical use of this.
Like taking a wave and changing the form. 

In my work, I eliminate unnecessary wasted energy in physical and electrical systems, using power through the least amount of changes or transformations.

I have developed a house design that uses less than 10% of the energy used to heat right now in a modern new house.


Euler's totient works with coprime numbers that are not divisible by any common integer except 1.  I don't understand how this translates to Evolution?   I have seen equations used to change a sign wave, by breaking down the points of the curve with this function.  That is not necessarily a physical function. And it deals with random? I don't think this is random at all.  Purely random has no structure, no form, no shape, no time, nothing. Random is not a scientific term that relates to reality.
   

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 12^th, 2010 at 10:45am:

The idea that everything in math is translatable to this time and space is not real.

I never said that. However, this is.


Quote:

This fourier series always works with wave forms and wave forms are linear and not random, but are generated by electric current in the physical use of this.

Not always. Fouruer series are used in a wide branch of physics.


Quote:

Euler's totient works with coprime numbers that are not divisible by any common integer except 1.[quote] Euler's totient function works on all integers. [quote]I don't understand how this translates to Evolution?

My mistake. Maybe this is not the forum for me. I am here to learn about evolution and challenge those who believe in evolution. But you were the one that brought up physics, and that is my area.



Quote:

I have seen equations used to change a sign wave, by breaking down the points of the curve with this function.

Mmmm, not quite no.  



Quote:

That is not necessarily a physical function. And it deals with random? I don't think this is random at all.

I didn't say that this function was random.



Quote:

Purely random has no structure, no form, no shape, no time, nothing. Random is not a scientific term that relates to reality.

Random may have structure, and very much so. Uniform randomness doesn't, but randomness with a distribution certainly have structure.

Maybe you don't really understand what random means? 

It means totally undirected by any possible means.  Mathematics is directed and therefore is not a "random" tool.

There is no evidence for evolution. That is the problem with these people who have ran with their tails tucked between their legs.
They have never thought about anything in their lives. They are simply brainwashed and believe crap without ever even thinking about it.

metha wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 4:07pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 12th, 2010 at 10:45am: The idea that everything in math is translatable to this time and space is not real. I never said that. However, this is. Quote: This fourier series always works with wave forms and wave forms are linear and not random, but are generated by electric current in the physical use of this. Not always. Fouruer series are used in a wide branch of physics. [quote]Euler's totient works with coprime numbers that are not divisible by any common integer except 1.[quote] Euler's totient function works on all integers. [quote]I don't understand how this translates to Evolution?

My mistake. Maybe this is not the forum for me. I am here to learn about evolution and challenge those who believe in evolution. But you were the one that brought up physics, and that is my area.



Quote:

I have seen equations used to change a sign wave, by breaking down the points of the curve with this function.

Mmmm, not quite no.  



Quote:

That is not necessarily a physical function. And it deals with random? I don't think this is random at all.

I didn't say that this function was random.



Quote:

Purely random has no structure, no form, no shape, no time, nothing. Random is not a scientific term that relates to reality.

Random may have structure, and very much so. Uniform randomness doesn't, but randomness with a distribution certainly have structure.
[/quote]

Random by definition has no structure.  If it had structure or form, then it is not random. Random is not translatable to physical reality. 

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 6:12pm:

There is no evidence for evolution. That is the problem with these people who have ran with their tails tucked between their legs. They have never thought about anything in their lives. They are simply brainwashed and believe crap without ever even thinking about it.

There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution! What don't you understand?  What have you proven wrong about it?

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 8:22pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 6:12pm: There is no evidence for evolution. That is the problem with these people who have ran with their tails tucked between their legs. They have never thought about anything in their lives. They are simply brainwashed and believe crap without ever even thinking about it. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution! What don't you understand?  What have you proven wrong about it?

There is no evidence for evolution. That is what I have shown clearly.  The only thing I have read in over 20,000 papers on this feculence is that all there exists in the theory of evodelusionism is opinions by brainwashed believers, because there is no physical evidence. Belief projected on evidence is not evidence it is f**king delusional bovine feculence.

Here is the question you need to answer for yourself.
Where is the absolute evidence for evolution that is irrefutable, physical, obvious and has NO f**kING OPINIONS by delusional believers IN IT? 
When I read all the papers on this feculence, there is a "huge  purple elephant" in the room call the delusional beliefs in evolution and it f**ks up the minds of all that it touches. You will see the nicest fuking delusional weak humans saying that there is evidence in DNA for evolution, when there is none.
You will see them state there are transitional fossils when there are none.  You will see them project this bovine feculence out that creatures adapt to survive as if it means they change into flying frogs or some such feculence. Survival is all that is shown in all the evidence.. Then extinction and nothing else.  Once the threshold of that creatures genome has been met it is gone.  How many creatures have gone extinct in my lifetime?  many thousands and those f**king extinct creatures did not evolve, they died.
If you look at the evidence and the conclusions there is no connection whatsoever. What they see with their delusional brainwashed "glasses" is not what is in the evidence.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 9:18pm:

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 8:22pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 6:12pm: There is no evidence for evolution. That is the problem with these people who have ran with their tails tucked between their legs. They have never thought about anything in their lives. They are simply brainwashed and believe crap without ever even thinking about it. There is a huge amount of evidence for evolution! What don't you understand?  What have you proven wrong about it? There is no evidence for evolution. That is what I have shown clearly.  The only thing I have read in over 20,000 papers on this feculence is that all there exists in the theory of evodelusionism is opinions by brainwashed believers, because there is no physical evidence. Belief projected on evidence is not evidence it is f**king delusional bovine feculence. Here is the question you need to answer for yourself. Where is the absolute evidence for evolution that is irrefutable, physical, obvious and has NO f**kING OPINIONS by delusional believers IN IT?  When I read all the papers on this feculence, there is a "huge  purple elephant" in the room call the delusional beliefs in evolution and it f**ks up the minds of all that it touches. You will see the nicest fuking delusional weak humans saying that there is evidence in DNA for evolution, when there is none. You will see them state there are transitional fossils when there are none.  You will see them project this bovine feculence out that creatures adapt to survive as if it means they change into flying frogs or some such feculence. Survival is all that is shown in all the evidence.. Then extinction and nothing else.  Once the threshold of that creatures genome has been met it is gone.  How many creatures have gone extinct in my lifetime?  many thousands and those f**king extinct creatures did not evolve, they died. If you look at the evidence and the conclusions there is no connection whatsoever. What they see with their delusional brainwashed "glasses" is not what is in the evidence.

SEE your problem is in the FACT that you don't believe.  So, again, stop beating around the bush and tell me what you don't believe in.

Nice attempt at being vague, but I am a little smarter than that.  Tell me why you don't believe the transitional fossils are transitional fossils.  Tell me why you don't believe DNA proves the link in our DNA.   Be more specific.

Prove all that information wrong.  When you can't, you will have no reason to not believe, RIGHT??  For if you can't prove it wrong, then what reason do you have for not believing.  So, I am asking you to show me the reason you don't believe, since you must have some reason for not believing.  Let's hear it!

LOL, and no they don't try to pass of that living things will adapt to turn into flying frogs and things.

Man, until you fix your logic, we will stop here. I will ask you one more time.......YOU NEED TO SHOW WHY YOU DON'T BELIEVE!!!

Let's hope you understand!

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14^th, 2010 at 6:08pm:

Maybe you don't really understand what random means?

Now it is pretty clear that you don't.


Quote:

It means totally undirected by any possible means.

 

No it doesn't. It can be very much directed if it has a distribution. Random is anything that happens with probabilities. Uniform randomness is a set of events that happens with equal probability. However, there are other distributions. Some events may happen with greater probability than others, it is still random, but WITH probability distributions. Haven't you had statistics?


Quote:

Mathematics is directed and therefore is not a "random" tool.

So you're saying that the mathematical tools that deals with randomness and probability distributions have nothing to do with randomness and probability distributions? Oh my...

You still haven't answered what Einstein meant by "time is relative". What do you think that means? Is it the perceivers psychological feeling of time he meant?

metha wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 4:13am:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 6:08pm: Maybe you don't really understand what random means? Now it is pretty clear that you don't. Quote: It means totally undirected by any possible means.   No it doesn't. It can be very much directed if it has a distribution. Random is anything that happens with probabilities. Uniform randomness is a set of events that happens with equal probability. However, there are other distributions. Some events may happen with greater probability than others, it is still random, but WITH probability distributions. Haven't you had statistics? [quote]Mathematics is directed and therefore is not a "random" tool.

So you're saying that the mathematical tools that deals with randomness and probability distributions have nothing to do with randomness and probability distributions? Oh my...

You still haven't answered what Einstein meant by "time is relative". What do you think that means? Is it the perceivers psychological feeling of time he meant?[/quote]

Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random.

If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are.  If you cave into popular beliefs, you will never succeed to get beyond them.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:02am:

metha wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 4:13am: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 14th, 2010 at 6:08pm: Maybe you don't really understand what random means? Now it is pretty clear that you don't. Quote: It means totally undirected by any possible means.   No it doesn't. It can be very much directed if it has a distribution. Random is anything that happens with probabilities. Uniform randomness is a set of events that happens with equal probability. However, there are other distributions. Some events may happen with greater probability than others, it is still random, but WITH probability distributions. Haven't you had statistics? [quote]Mathematics is directed and therefore is not a "random" tool. So you're saying that the mathematical tools that deals with randomness and probability distributions have nothing to do with randomness and probability distributions? Oh my... You still haven't answered what Einstein meant by "time is relative". What do you think that means? Is it the perceivers psychological feeling of time he meant?

Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random.

If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are.  If you cave into popular beliefs, you will never succeed to get beyond them.
[/quote]


True objectivity would take your consciousness out of the physical and start looking from that perspective.

"A person starts to live when he can live outside himself."
Albert Einstein

It is the ego and beliefs that mess you up.  You should never believe anyone and start to seek what is only true.

"So you're saying that the mathematical tools that deals with randomness and probability distributions have nothing to do with randomness and probability distributions? Oh my..."

All of those tools are inaccurate. In case you don't know that.
Probability is not based on random, but on sampling testing small portions and using that to predict. The farther away from the "test subjects" the farther from accurate it is. 

This is how statistical data are know to be manipulated for political reasons. 

And if all the "particles" are the same then it is calculated as a group.  The inter(within the group)-cause and effect between the particles has nothing to do with the result of the group of particles, because when acted upon by an outside law of physics the all respond the same way, together.

This basically negates the quantum ideas of groups from anything beyond identical particles or extremely related particles like gas molecules.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:02am:

Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random.

I explained to you what a probability distribution is, and if you do not understand it, you cannot blame me. Randomness can have a PROBABILITY, even if it is random! Look at the lottery, for crying out loud!!!


Quote:

If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are.

196 IQ is greater than yours. What scale was you tested with, and with what variance?


I thought I found an interesting webpage where one could critisize evolution and discuss it. But this site is messed up. I have discovered that you have no idea what you are talking about. And I am a creationist. I found another forum where I could discuss evolution, and they have actual arguments against the theory of evolution. AND they appreciate real physics and other opinions.

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 11:10am:

All of those tools are inaccurate. In case you don't know that.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No they are PROVED!!!



Quote:

Probability is not based on random, but on sampling testing small portions and using that to predict. The farther away from the "test subjects" the farther from accurate it is.

If something has a probability, it is random UP TO that probability! Why sampling small potions? LOL you could just aswell sample LARGE portions. And it is not called sampling potions. It is called events and stochastic variables. Quite fundamental and basic.


Quote:

This is how statistical data are know to be manipulated for political reasons.

LOL!!! What has that to do with mathemacal statistics? You really think statistics in newspapers is mathematical statistics? LOLOL!!!!!!!!!! Do you really think that mathematical statistics is concerned about political manipulation of data? Do you really think that mathematical statistics has anything to do with concrete data? LOL. No, they have a theoretic approach to analyze real data. OMG, you really showed yourself as incompetent. And I am a creationist, and even if I agree with ONE of your conclusions, I disagree on everything else, and I now believe that your reasons for your conclusions are totally messed up, and you are not the right person to learn anything from. Even atheists are more willing to listen to others than you are.

And still you do not understand what Einstein meant with "time is relative", and you expect me, who is into physics and actually understands relativity theory, to learn from you???

metha wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 12:26pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 11:02am: Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random. I explained to you what a probability distribution is, and if you do not understand it, you cannot blame me. Randomness can have a PROBABILITY, even if it is random! Look at the lottery, for crying out loud!!! Quote: If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are. 196 IQ is greater than yours. What scale was you tested with, and with what variance? I thought I found an interesting webpage where one could critisize evolution and discuss it. But this site is messed up. I have discovered that you have no idea what you are talking about. And I am a creationist. I found another forum where I could discuss evolution, and they have actual arguments against the theory of evolution. AND they appreciate real physics and other opinions.

The lottery is not random, but is based on physics, cause and effect.

I really don't think you understand the meaning of "random".
True random does not exist in the physical world.

You don't seem very bright, because you can't understand basic laws of science.  I am sorry but you are just going to be another "brick in the wall".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

metha wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 12:26pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 11:02am: Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random. I explained to you what a probability distribution is, and if you do not understand it, you cannot blame me. Randomness can have a PROBABILITY, even if it is random! Look at the lottery, for crying out loud!!! Quote: If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are. 196 IQ is greater than yours. What scale was you tested with, and with what variance? I thought I found an interesting webpage where one could critisize evolution and discuss it. But this site is messed up. I have discovered that you have no idea what you are talking about. And I am a creationist. I found another forum where I could discuss evolution, and they have actual arguments against the theory of evolution. AND they appreciate real physics and other opinions. The lottery is not random, but is based on physics, cause and effect. I really don't think you understand the meaning of "random". True random does not exist in the physical world. You don't seem very bright, because you can't understand basic laws of science.  I am sorry but you are just going to be another "brick in the wall". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw

The OUTCOME of lottery is random.  The process is based on physics, but the outcome(different numbers each time) points to the fact that........given the amount of numbers(balls) involved........the predictability cannot be obtained within any reasonable conclusion.

That's what we keep trying to tell you, but for some reason you don't want to believe or listen!

MajorAtheist wrote on Jan 16^th, 2010 at 3:36pm:

GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 1:22pm: metha wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 12:26pm: GoodScienceForYou wrote on Jan 15th, 2010 at 11:02am: Why do you contradict yourself?   True random is not predictable, has no characteristics you can evaluate, and has no structure and no cause and effect. That is the definition of random. I explained to you what a probability distribution is, and if you do not understand it, you cannot blame me. Randomness can have a PROBABILITY, even if it is random! Look at the lottery, for crying out loud!!! Quote: If you don't understand that, then I don't think you are as intelligent as you say you are. 196 IQ is greater than yours. What scale was you tested with, and with what variance? I thought I found an interesting webpage where one could critisize evolution and discuss it. But this site is messed up. I have discovered that you have no idea what you are talking about. And I am a creationist. I found another forum where I could discuss evolution, and they have actual arguments against the theory of evolution. AND they appreciate real physics and other opinions. The lottery is not random, but is based on physics, cause and effect. I really don't think you understand the meaning of "random". True random does not exist in the physical world. You don't seem very bright, because you can't understand basic laws of science.  I am sorry but you are just going to be another "brick in the wall". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_bvT-DGcWw The OUTCOME of lottery is random.  The process is based on physics, but the outcome(different numbers each time) points to the fact that........given the amount of numbers(balls) involved........the predictability cannot be obtained within any reasonable conclusion. That's what we keep trying to tell you, but for some reason you don't want to believe or listen!

You don't have a clue what you are talking about.

There are no beliefs in real science. Real science is pure and clear of beliefs if you equate it this way Science = Seeking Truth.

If you are not seeking the truth in the matter, then you are only seeking to project belief on the world. That is the nature of delusional beliefs.

In all of this there is only case and effect or cause and result. There exists no random. Random violates the laws of physics.

Just because with a weak and feeble mind you, as a normal human, don't undertand all the physics involved certainly does not make random a real phenomenon.

In every event or complex sets of events, there is only physics and the interaction of all the parts as they bounce off each other. There are causes for the numbers to come out of the chute.

If you were able to slow down the lottery drawing by using high speed cameras you would know this.

The way the balls are moved, the weight of the balls, the type of equipment, the paint on the balls and the weight of those numbers in terms of mass density and molecular make up, the density of the air, the exact make up of the air molecules, humidity.
The air pressure and size of the air nozzle. The mass, density, polarity or electrical charges of anything that is near the lottery machine. The individual electrical charges that may be on any ball has an effect. 

I'll bet you have never thought about much of anything outside of the brainwashing.