Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Suicide Junkie]

Originally posted by PvK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QuarianRex:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:

For example, if we hook up a drive capable of what would be ten times the speed of light to a Twinkie, and send it five light-years away and back (ten light-years total distance), we'll see it re-appear in ten years time, and history will not be changed, but the Twinkie will only have aged one year. No humpback whales will be saved.

PvK

I have got to disagree here (I know I'm jumping in a little late but what the heck). If equiping a twinkie with a drive system capable of 10x the speed of light it would travel 10 light years in only one year of our subjective time.

---

That's where I think you're mistaken/backwards, if you Subscribe to quantum theory. According to QT, in no frame of reference is any physical object allowed to be accelerated to the speed of light. Instead, it will seem to age less quickly, from the stationary frame of reference. So, from Earth, the Twinkie seems to have taken at least ten years to make the trip, but the Calendar clock included as a free gift inside the Twinkie package only shows one year elapsed.[/qb]

---

We started with the assumption that the Twinkie was moving at 10x the speed of light! You're not allowed to say it isn't possible.

Think of the discussion as thus:
While bending or breaking the fewest laws of physics in order to get a Twinkie moving at 10x the speed of light, what might happen?

for V>C:
gamma = 1/[ (1-V^2/C^2)^.5 ]
1/ (-ve)^.5
or 1/i
So an imaginary number... how do you want to interpret that?

[dogscoff]

Don't believe the billions of years, or the Bible stuff he read? I'm getting a little lost here. From what I understand of the Bible, it does say the earth is 10 thousand years old or so. If he really believes the Bible, why shouldn't he believe that part, too?

I mean he didn't simply say "I reject science/ astronomy/ physics altogether." which is the only sensible approach if you're going to take the bible word for word and believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old. It has to be one or the other: trying to reconcile the two is just impossible...

I'm pretty sure that the bible doesn't specifically give an age for the universe, but you can make a guess at the date of creation by counting how many generations of ppl lived from Adam and Eve up to the end of the Old Testament, by which time biblical history crosses over with actual, recorded history. I think- I'm no expert on the matter...

[ December 10, 2002, 16:08: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Captain Kwok]

I like your link Dogscoff!

[dogscoff]

Kwok: I know, it's cool isn't it? I have all those track in my mp3 playlists. My favourite is "All my shootins be driveby":

Time to give a newtonian demonstration/
Of a bullet, its mass and its accelleration/

There is a brief mention of the article I referred to here. I'll try to get some more tonight or tomorrow.

[ December 10, 2002, 17:01: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Krsqk]

Having only skimmed the FAQ, I did find some interesting quotes.

This about "aged creation":

The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one (see the section on the scientific method)

Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating):

This process is assumed to be in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the biosphere...

Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration.

Mutations as mechanism:

So in evolutionary theory, even though the occurrence of a particular mutation is random, the overall effect of improved adaptation to the environment over time is not.

Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?

Anyone who says that science "proves" creation is wrong. Creation/religion isn't science. But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution. See the works of Karl Popper on the philosophy of science and the scientific method (greatly summarized, scientific theories must be testable; anything else is outside the realm of science).

[edits-typos]

[ December 10, 2002, 19:15: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[Phoenix-D]

"Radiocarbon (C-14) dating (and applicable to all methods of dating)"

This can't be used against "aged creation" because the idea is the universe was poofed into place exactly *as if* it was X years old. There is no way to test that simply because there's no way to distgiush an old universe with a "fake old" young universe.

"Not to mention that it's assumed to have always been present in the same concentration."

Correct. It's formed and lost, and currently that is at a balance. It would always -end up- at equilbrium, but we don't know if the point of balance has changed. OTOH, C-14 dating is only used for fairly recent dating, and there are other methods.

"Isn't the retention of acquired characteristics Lamarckism? And doesn't this assume that mutation results in improvements?"

No, and not exactly. Lamarckism applies to physical characteritics, genetics to the genes of the organism. The difference is that Lamarckism predicts that if you lost an arm, then have children, your children would -also- not have that arm. It also predicts little or no variation in the children, since anything not expressed doesn't exist and can't be transmitted. Neither are true.

Mutations don't always result in improvements; actually most of them are probably BAD for the organism in question. Random chance though, so you'll likely get a good mutation eventually. My biology teacher put it in a good way, like so:

"Say I take a 100-sided dice, and bet you $5 that I will roll a 1. If I roll anything else, I loose. Good bet, right? Now, is it still a good bet if I get to roll the dice *1000 times*, and if I get just one 1 in those rolls I win?"

The best example of this is antibiotic resistant bacteria. They normally don't compete any better against the rest of the bacteria, so their numbers are fairly small. But the antibiotic comes in, kills off the rest of the bacteria, and their numbers can explode. Instant evolution.

"But anyone who says that science "proves" evolution is misinformed about the basic unproven assumptions vital to evolution."

Also known as "the current best guess."

Phoenix-D

[capnq]

This site {link} has a good summary of how people have estimated the date of the Creation.