Is the Spirit World on Earth?

[Vort]

My..I am so lost in this conversation.

Metaphysics tends to be a frustrating and often boring subject. Sorry about that.

[pam]

Oh no need to be sorry. It's just all beyond me.

[Traveler]

No, it doesn't remain unproven. It has been disproven. And that is my point; physics, like all science, is not about "finding truth". It's about making and refining models. The core truth is assumed a priori to be unknowable.

Disproven? What is dark energy? and why does it bend light? Aether has been resurrected as a possible explanation. Not exactly as aether but something that we know only by it's effects - like dark matter. And keep in mind that dark energy and dark matter make up 95% of what shapes our universe.

I am not sure why you are hostile to truths through models and refining models - since even G-d uses symbolism and model imagery to reveal divine truths. Also even your use of "truth" is based on model imagery - and if such uses are not truth then your definition and criticism also so fails based on your own arguments.

This is not a settled matter. It is an assumption that has held up pretty well; for example, Einstein's work is ultimately largely based on this idea. But it has not been proven, and indeed cannot be proven, to hold for all areas of the universe. Furthermore, the prevailing forces vary so widely based on scale (e.g. at the small scale, atomic forces dominate, while at the large scale gravitation dominates) that in effect it is false, or at least not useful for making usable approximations.

???? I am not following your logic. In part, the very definition of the (our) universe is the space-time where the laws of physics are isotropic. I understand it is possible to fabricate and fantasize many things - but the only way to "prove" if any such things are in truth part of our universe is through relationship to the proven laws of physics to that part of the universe where the isotropic laws exist.

This is clearly incorrect. When a stone is flying through the air in a ballistic trajectory, it is not constantly calculating its position based on some equation or factoring in air resistance or minor gravitational variations. It simply goes. All that other stuff, that math and language and description that make up physics, is all purely for our benefit so that we can understand it. It's merely a model of reality. It is a human endeavor. There is nothing "natural" about physics or math or chemistry or such things.

???? Again I am not sure what you are trying to say - a stone flying through the air in a ballistic trajectory is constantly having it position "calculated" or "determined" based on factors of air resistance and gravitational effects - all of which are consistent with the laws of physics. If you are saying that there are or is another factor or factors that are not part of the laws of physics that currently govern such things your logic failed to provide any proof for any such possibility. You have proven and demonstrated - nothing - beyond the laws of physics. So I have no idea what fantasy you are purporting as truth?

To say otherwise, that physics is the way nature operates, is the same as saying that God is what we say he is. This is exactly what atheists believe, of course, but it is not what we believe. God exists independently of what we believe about him. We can't just change our beliefs about him and thereby change him. Deciding that God is benevolent and therefore won't condemn us for living in our sins doesn't actually change God's nature at all; it just perverts our understanding of that nature. In the same way, defining physics to be a certain way does not change the nature of, well, nature. It just modifies, for better or worse, our understanding of nature.

This is a very big problem of your own creation. There are metrics of a corporal nature that we can measure - regardless of what we believe about nature. G-d and his existence has no corporal metrics that are currently defined anywhere - at least that I know of - If you know of such divine corporal metrics - would you pass them on. If not I do not understand why you used the above arguments that are not demonstrable or any more accurate than any of my statements to which you disagree and criticize. Which therefore, seems to me to communicate that your are arguing just for your enjoyment rather than adding to the discussion.

So - is the question now -- How do we humans ascertain truth? any truth?

The Traveler

Edited January 22, 2013 by Traveler

[Vort]

Disproven?

Indeed. The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a light-conducting medium that supported a common reference frame, clearing the way for Einstein.

What is dark energy? and why does it bend light?

Dark energy is an idea invented to try to explain anomalous phenomena that defy our current models of physics.

Aether has been resurrected as a possible explanation. Not exactly as aether but something that we know only by it's effects - like dark matter.

And as such, it is not much if any different from the Gravity Fairies that keep us on the ground.

And keep in mind that dark energy and dark matter make up 95% of what shapes our universe.

That assumes that there is such a thing as "dark matter" and "dark energy", which is hardly established science.

I am not sure why you are hostile to truths through models and refining models

I am not sure why you insist on misinterpreting me. I am drawing a distinction (and I think a very obvious one) between external, self-existent truth and our human efforts to model that truth in a way that we can understand and use to make predictions.

Remember, this discussion started when you objected to my statement that physics, math, chemistry, and such were all very human endeavors.

???? I am not following your logic. In part, the very definition of the (our) universe is the space-time where the laws of physics are isotropic.

Not so. The universe is defined as everything that we can see or infer. Isotropism does not enter into the definition anywhere.

For example, let us suppose that a region of space just beyond the moon's orbit is suddenly, amazingly found to be anisotropic with respect to physical law. Would we then say that that region of space is therefore no longer part of our universe? Or would we instead say that the universe obviously is not completely isotropic with respect to physical law?

I understand it is possible to fabricate and fantasize many things - but the only way to "prove" if any such things are in truth part of our universe is through relationship to the proven laws of physics to that part of the universe where the isotropic laws exist.

This simply is not so, Traveler. You are mistaken. No one anywhere has to prove physical isotropism in order for their observations or derivations to be considered part of the universe. I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is incorrect.

???? Again I am not sure what you are trying to say - a stone flying through the air in a ballistic trajectory is constantly having it position "calculated" or "determined" based on factors of air resistance and gravitational effects - all of which are consistent with the laws of physics.

Yes, you are indeed not understanding my point.

A stone flying through the air DOES NOT CALCULATE ANYTHING. That is my point. WE HUMANS calculate ballistic trajectories and planetary orbits, because the math we use forms a model for how things REALLY WORK. And the "really work" part does not involve math. Why not? Because math is not reality. Math is a human construct that attempts to help model reality. Ditto with physics. Stones don't fall a certain way based on physics; rather, physics models things based on how stones fall.

If you are saying that there are or is another factor or factors that are not part of the laws of physics that currently govern such things your logic failed to provide any proof for any such possibility.

You are clearly not comprehending what I'm saying, though I am not sure how to say it any clearer.

This is a very big problem of your own creation. There are metrics of a corporal nature that we can measure - regardless of what we believe about nature. G-d and his existence has no corporal metrics that are currently defined anywhere - at least that I know of - If you know of such divine corporal metrics - would you pass them on.

Sure. God has a body with physical size and characteristics such as white hair.

If not I do not understand why you used the above arguments that are not demonstrable or any more accurate than any of my statements to which you disagree and criticize. Which therefore, seems to me to communicate that your are arguing just for your enjoyment rather than adding to the discussion.

Traveler, your failure to comprehend what I'm saying does not suggest that I'm arguing for the fun of it.

So - is the question now -- How do we humans ascertain truth? any truth?

Not by physics. Not by studying science. We ascertain truth by divine revelation, and by no other way.

[Finrock]

Good afternoon dirtydevil. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the forums! :)

You also beleive that personal agency is an eternal principle.

Please consider the following scripture. I have quoted more than I intend to use so that you have some context. I intend to speak to the emphasized parts specifically:

24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;

27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.

28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.

29 Man was also in the abeginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

It is true that we have personal agency. We are free agents and we have free will. However, it is false to say that our agency and independence is absolute. As this scripture teaches, we are only free within "that sphere in which God has placed us" and we will not be completely free until we have received a fulness of truth and light. In other words, we a free within the bounds God has set and we gain more freedom only to the extent that we obey God's commandments. That means those in lower kingdoms will be limited in their agency and their freedoms. They will not be able to enjoy a fulness.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

Indeed. The Michelson-Morley experiment disproved the existence of a light-conducting medium that supported a common reference frame, clearing the way for Einstein.

Michelson-Morley only disproved a specific "model" of aether as a common reference frame. Space-time as purported by Einstein is in essence a description of another possibility for aether. The truth of this "medium" also has been known for some time at the sub-atomic level in quantum analysis. This is replacing the idea of nothing or a vacuum that is indeed both "busy" and occupied - the definition of ether. If you like our discussion can go into more detail.

Dark energy is an idea invented to try to explain anomalous phenomena that defy our current models of physics.

Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the events that we know to exist that we did no know of 20 years ago. Nothing has changed in our model of physics - but rather our understanding of our universe and why it continues to expand and accelerate it's expansion measuring slight frequency shifts in light of feeding stars that supernova.

And as such, it is not much if any different from the Gravity Fairies that keep us on the ground.

Really - in all honesty do you believe the above statement? I am not sure I should respond to this statement because I think you are making an argument that either you do not understand or you are trying to derail rational discussion that will gain you fantasy points? - but not with anyone that realizes how offensive to intelligence that it is.

That assumes that there is such a thing as "dark matter" and "dark energy", which is hardly established science.

Dark energy and dark matter are names given to measurable (corporal metrics) to events that are taking place - Are you implying that such measured events are not really occurring? or that such events have no cause? What are you saying? Perhaps you have a better solution? Why are you arguing this point. Are you saying dark matter and dark energy are anti truth?

I am not sure why you insist on misinterpreting me. I am drawing a distinction (and I think a very obvious one) between external, self-existent truth and our human efforts to model that truth in a way that we can understand and use to make predictions.

My point is that you are "drawing a distinction" that is itself a human effort or model to represent truth. But you provide no proof that there is in your model a superior representation of any truth than the predictions made through science. How have is misinterpreted your claim? Please be specific.

Remember, this discussion started when you objected to my statement that physics, math, chemistry, and such were all very human endeavors.

Exactly - the truths of physics, math, chemistry as all enlightenment is revelation from G-d according to covenants established by G-d and in accordance to his laws - I do object to your notion that man made up such things all by himself.

Not so. The universe is defined as everything that we can see or infer. Isotropism does not enter into the definition anywhere.

I will use one example (rhetorical logic) to disprove your statement. In expansion theory we "see" and "infer" the possibilities of infinite universes that "intersect" with our universe creating pockets of stuff detectable from our universe of things of another universe that is not isotropic to our laws of physics. All theoretical mind you but still inferred.

For example, let us suppose that a region of space just beyond the moon's orbit is suddenly, amazingly found to be anisotropic with respect to physical law. Would we then say that that region of space is therefore no longer part of our universe? Or would we instead say that the universe obviously is not completely isotropic with respect to physical law?

Your argument is pure fantasy and speculation with not a single reference to reality or for that matter truth. We are discussing truth and your argument has no bases in or to truth. Thus I call your argument false or in other terms - a lie. My question is - why are your arguments lies?

This simply is not so, Traveler. You are mistaken. No one anywhere has to prove physical isotropism in order for their observations or derivations to be considered part of the universe. I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is incorrect.

Would you provide an example that proves I am incorrect? If not will you except the possibility that the universe is isotropic? That the universe is not just possibly isotropic but in all probability isotropic? Can you present any counter possibility that meets your own standard of truth? If not why do you argue that the universe is not isotropic? or that the universe is not likely isotropic? What other than human fantasy that you say you object to; is the basis of your argument?

Yes, you are indeed not understanding my point.

A stone flying through the air DOES NOT CALCULATE ANYTHING. That is my point. WE HUMANS calculate ballistic trajectories and planetary orbits, because the math we use forms a model for how things REALLY WORK. And the "really work" part does not involve math. Why not? Because math is not reality. Math is a human construct that attempts to help model reality. Ditto with physics. Stones don't fall a certain way based on physics; rather, physics models things based on how stones fall.

But the difference that you claim must exist between math and physics modes to perceive what is real is itself your human construct. If your model of the difference between true understanding and false understandings has any credence then your model is - by definition false and also inaccurate.

And I will go a step farther in saying since you have provided no metrics - your claim cannot be validated. You provide not even a single reason why I, your self or anyone else should accept your model of truth over the model of truths in math and physics. That is my point - you take away any possible truths of math and physics and you offer noting in return - nothing. So I will stay with math and physics as being truthful until you offer something actually better.

You are clearly not comprehending what I'm saying, though I am not sure how to say it any clearer.

Sure. God has a body with physical size and characteristics such as white hair.

Traveler, your failure to comprehend what I'm saying does not suggest that I'm arguing for the fun of it.

Not by physics. Not by studying science. We ascertain truth by divine revelation, and by no other way.

Just one question - throughout history has mankind been more mislead by individuals claiming divine revelation or by individuals following principles of science? I submit that the principles of science are themselves revelations from G-d and that scientist have historically remained more loyal to the divine principles of truth than have those claiming revelation from G-d - especially those claiming revelations and understandings contrary to the revelations of science.

For me - I cannot see any difference in the truth of science and the truths of religion. And despite all your arguments I still do not believe there to be any actual differences. That the truths of religion as the truths of science can only be ascertained by following correct (true) principles. And I submit that the principles of truth are the same if a person seeks understanding of math and physics or the eternal goodness of G-d and the eternal evil of Satan.

The Traveler

[Vort]

Michelson-Morley only disproved a specific "model" of aether as a common reference frame.

What you say her is simply false. Is it really possible you don't know about Michelson-Morley?

When light was determined to be some sort of wave, the "luminiferous ether" was proposed as the medium in which this wave traveled. (A water wave doesn't exist without water, and a sound wave doesn't exist without air or other sound-transmitting material, so light was thought not to exist without a light-bearing medium.) As experiment after experiment failed to demonstrate the existence of this "luminiferous ether", it took on more and more bizarre characteristics: It had no mass, no inertia, was completely inert with respect to reacting with any substance or even energy other than light.

Some physicists pointed out that, since the earth has to travel through the "luminiferous ether" in its orbit and during its rotation, the speed of light in the direction of earth's travel and rotation must be different from the speed of light in the opposite direction. Since light is traveling through the medium, it must obviously travel faster in one direction than the other, since the medium itself was in (relative) motion to the earth.

But Michelson-Morley determined that the speed of light was absolutely uniform in all directions, showing no effect whatsoever whether you were shooting light along with the earth's orbit and rotation, opposite to it, or across its path. This was the first, and ultimately fatal, chink in the armor of the "luminiferous ether." It was, in very point of fact, utterly disproven.

Traveler, this is ridiculous, bordering on absurd. Every second-year physics undergraduate knows about Michelson-Morley. It is not possible to have even just a thorough introduction to physics without knowing about it. So either you knew about Michelson-Morley and what it proved or else you did not.

If you DID know about it, then you also know that your statement above -- "Michelson-Morley only disproved a specific 'model' of aether as a common reference frame" -- is patently false. There was no other model. Attempts to modify the "luminiferous ether" model to account for Michelson-Morley (e.g. the earth dragged the luminiferous ether along wtih it) failed miserably. The model was utterly discounted, not merely some specific version of it.

And if you DID NOT know the specifics of Michelson-Morley, then you really have no idea what you're talking about, and you should not represent yourself as knowledgeable in this area. In the past, you have repeatedly called yourself a "scientist" and asserted your understanding of physics, but your argumentation here suggests that both propositions are untrue.

Space-time as purported by Einstein is in essence a description of another possibility for aether.

Einstein's gravitation suggests that THERE EXISTS NO UNIQUE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME -- ALL INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMES ARE EQUALLY VALID. Which of course fits just perfectly into the "luminiferous ether" model, other than the fact that it completely doesn't.

Seriously, Traveler, this is becoming uncomfortably embarrassing. If you are not embarrassed, then I conclude you don't know what's going on.

The truth of this "medium" also has been known for some time at the sub-atomic level in quantum analysis. This is replacing the idea of nothing or a vacuum that is indeed both "busy" and occupied - the definition of ether. If you like our discussion can go into more detail.

Traveler, the "luminiferous ether" has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the so-called quantum vacuum. That's like saying that electron orbitals are the same thing as tooth decay.

Dark energy is the name given to whatever is causing the events that we know to exist that we did no know of 20 years ago.

No, that is false. "Dark energy" is a hypothesis attempting to explain anomalous observations. These same observations might be explained by a fifth fundamental force that becomes apparent only at the galactic scale, sort of a superweak gravity.

And as such, it is not much if any different from the Gravity Fairies that keep us on the ground.

Really - in all honesty do you believe the above statement? I am not sure I should respond to this statement because I think you are making an argument that either you do not understand or you are trying to derail rational discussion that will gain you fantasy points? - but not with anyone that realizes how offensive to intelligence that it is.

Yes, I believe my statement, because it is true. Gravity Fairies hold us to the earth, and we know they exist because, hey, we're held to the earth, right? Gravity Fairies! This is EXACTLY your argument for "dark energy" -- "Dark energy is whatever is causing these weird observations, and we know dark energy exists because, hey, look at these weird observations! Dark energy!" The logic of your explanation of dark energy is identical to the logic of my explanation of Gravity Fairies.

I do agree with you that there's plenty in this conversation that's offensive to intelligence. I suspect we disagree on where that offensiveness lies.

Dark energy and dark matter are names given to measurable (corporal metrics) to events that are taking place

Again, you are simply wrong, Traveler. "Dark energy" and "dark matter" are not names given to events. The events you speak of are called things like "stars far away from the galactic core orbit the galaxy much faster than we think they should based on gravitational attraction". The terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" refer to HYPOTHESES that attempt to EXPLAIN the observed events.

If you are the scientist that you represent yourself as being, you must surely already know this. I'm no scientist, and yet I know all this stuff. How is it that you, a self-proclaimed professional scientist, can be ignorant of such basic and obvious things as the difference between an observed event and a hypothetical explanation for the event?

Are you implying that such measured events are not really occurring? or that such events have no cause?

No. I am saying (not implying) that "dark energy" and "dark matter" are not the events. They are merely hypothetical explanations for those events.

Are you saying dark matter and dark energy are anti truth?

Um, no. I am saying they are not-very-convincing models invoked to explain observations.

My point is that you are "drawing a distinction" that is itself a human effort or model to represent truth. But you provide no proof that there is in your model a superior representation of any truth than the predictions made through science.

How frustrating to converse with you, Traveler. You ignore silly little conventions like THE ACTUAL MEANING OF WORDS, instead insisting on plowing forward to try to establish your non-existent point, all the while pointedly ignoring what I have expressed in as clear a manner as I possibly can.

Science does not discover truth. By its nature, ultimate truth is assumed a priori to be unknowable. Science merely creates and refines models that attempt to quantize and characterize observed phenomena.

How have is misinterpreted your claim? Please be specific.

We may start out with these gems, all from a single post of yours:

I am not sure why you are hostile to truths through models and refining models

If you are saying that there are or is another factor or factors that are not part of the laws of physics that currently govern such things your logic failed to provide any proof for any such possibility.

If not I do not understand why you used the above arguments that are not demonstrable or any more accurate than any of my statements to which you disagree and criticize. Which therefore, seems to me to communicate that your are arguing just for your enjoyment rather than adding to the discussion.

Exactly - the truths of physics, math, chemistry as all enlightenment is revelation from G-d according to covenants established by G-d and in accordance to his laws

Can you cite some scriptural teachings to substantiate your claim that those who follow the scientific method are procuring divine revelation?

Not so. The universe is defined as everything that we can see or infer. Isotropism does not enter into the definition anywhere.

I will use one example (rhetorical logic) to disprove your statement. In expansion theory we "see" and "infer" the possibilities of infinite universes that "intersect" with our universe creating pockets of stuff detectable from our universe of things of another universe that is not isotropic to our laws of physics.

I have not the least idea how you believe this disproves my statement. Can you elaborate?

For example, let us suppose that a region of space just beyond the moon's orbit is suddenly, amazingly found to be anisotropic with respect to physical law. Would we then say that that region of space is therefore no longer part of our universe? Or would we instead say that the universe obviously is not completely isotropic with respect to physical law?

Your argument is pure fantasy and speculation with not a single reference to reality or for that matter truth.

You are mistaken in every particular. My argument is neither fantasy nor speculation; rather, it is an example that disproves your assertion. You claimed that the universe is defined as isotropic space. This is simply not true. Suppose we were to discover anisotropic space. Do you think we would immediately classify it as being something outside our universe? Of course not. Our universe is not defined by isotropism; rather, isotropism is thought to be a characteristic of our universe.

We are discussing truth and your argument has no bases in or to truth. Thus I call your argument false or in other terms - a lie. My question is - why are your arguments lies?

I suppose for the same reason you keep raping puppies and kittens, Traveler.

This simply is not so, Traveler. You are mistaken. No one anywhere has to prove physical isotropism in order for their observations or derivations to be considered part of the universe. I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is incorrect.

Would you provide an example that proves I am incorrect?

I have already done so.

If not will you except the possibility that the universe is isotropic?

I not only accept that possibility, I assume it's true. But we are not discussing the supposedly isotropic nature of the universe. Rather, we are discussing your assertion that the universe is defined as that area which is isotropic to physical law. Your assertion is false, as I have clearly shown.

If not why do you argue that the universe is not isotropic? or that the universe is not likely isotropic?

I have nowhere argued this. If you think I have, please just produce the quote where I made any such claim.

What other than human fantasy that you say you object to; is the basis of your argument?

The basis of my argument is logic and the meaning of words.

But the difference that you claim must exist between math and physics modes to perceive what is real is itself your human construct.

Two quick observations:

1. What you say is utterly non sequitur to what I wrote.

2. What of it? My point is that physics is not nature. Physics is a human construct.

If your model of the difference between true understanding and false understandings has any credence then your model is - by definition false and also inaccurate.

Please demonstrate how this fails by definition.

And I will go a step farther in saying since you have provided no metrics - your claim cannot be validated.

Traveler, I must conclude that you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. My "claim" is not one of metrics and validation, but of the plain meaning of words.

You provide not even a single reason why I, your self or anyone else should accept your model of truth over the model of truths in math and physics.

Math and physics do not have a model of truth. That is the purview of revelation.

That is my point - you take away any possible truths of math and physics and you offer noting in return - nothing.

I take nothing away. Honest mathematicians and physicists are the very first to admit that they do not deal in "truth".

Just one question - throughout history has mankind been more mislead by individuals claiming divine revelation or by individuals following principles of science?

Science, and it's not even close.

For me - I cannot see any difference in the truth of science and the truths of religion.

I suspect this is because you have your eyes tightly shut.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Vort

[Traveler]

What you say her is simply false. Is it really possible you don't know about Michelson-Morley?

When light was determined to be some sort of wave, the "luminiferous ether" was proposed as the medium in which this wave traveled. (A water wave doesn't exist without water, and a sound wave doesn't exist without air or other sound-transmitting material, so light was thought not to exist without a light-bearing medium.) As experiment after experiment failed to demonstrate the existence of this "luminiferous ether", it took on more and more bizarre characteristics: It had no mass, no inertia, was completely inert with respect to reacting with any substance or even energy other than light.

Some physicists pointed out that, since the earth has to travel through the "luminiferous ether" in its orbit and during its rotation, the speed of light in the direction of earth's travel and rotation must be different from the speed of light in the opposite direction. Since light is traveling through the medium, it must obviously travel faster in one direction than the other, since the medium itself was in (relative) motion to the earth.

But Michelson-Morley determined that the speed of light was absolutely uniform in all directions, showing no effect whatsoever whether you were shooting light along with the earth's orbit and rotation, opposite to it, or across its path. This was the first, and ultimately fatal, chink in the armor of the "luminiferous ether." It was, in very point of fact, utterly disproven.

Traveler, this is ridiculous, bordering on absurd. Every second-year physics undergraduate knows about Michelson-Morley. It is not possible to have even just a thorough introduction to physics without knowing about it. So either you knew about Michelson-Morley and what it proved or else you did not.

If you DID know about it, then you also know that your statement above -- "Michelson-Morley only disproved a specific 'model' of aether as a common reference frame" -- is patently false. There was no other model. Attempts to modify the "luminiferous ether" model to account for Michelson-Morley (e.g. the earth dragged the luminiferous ether along wtih it) failed miserably. The model was utterly discounted, not merely some specific version of it.

And if you DID NOT know the specifics of Michelson-Morley, then you really have no idea what you're talking about, and you should not represent yourself as knowledgeable in this area. In the past, you have repeatedly called yourself a "scientist" and asserted your understanding of physics, but your argumentation here suggests that both propositions are untrue.

Einstein's gravitation suggests that THERE EXISTS NO UNIQUE INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME -- ALL INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAMES ARE EQUALLY VALID. Which of course fits just perfectly into the "luminiferous ether" model, other than the fact that it completely doesn't.

Seriously, Traveler, this is becoming uncomfortably embarrassing. If you are not embarrassed, then I conclude you don't know what's going on.

Traveler, the "luminiferous ether" has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with the so-called quantum vacuum. That's like saying that electron orbitals are the same thing as tooth decay.

No, that is false. "Dark energy" is a hypothesis attempting to explain anomalous observations. These same observations might be explained by a fifth fundamental force that becomes apparent only at the galactic scale, sort of a superweak gravity.

Yes, I believe my statement, because it is true. Gravity Fairies hold us to the earth, and we know they exist because, hey, we're held to the earth, right? Gravity Fairies! This is EXACTLY your argument for "dark energy" -- "Dark energy is whatever is causing these weird observations, and we know dark energy exists because, hey, look at these weird observations! Dark energy!" The logic of your explanation of dark energy is identical to the logic of my explanation of Gravity Fairies.

I do agree with you that there's plenty in this conversation that's offensive to intelligence. I suspect we disagree on where that offensiveness lies.

Again, you are simply wrong, Traveler. "Dark energy" and "dark matter" are not names given to events. The events you speak of are called things like "stars far away from the galactic core orbit the galaxy much faster than we think they should based on gravitational attraction". The terms "dark energy" and "dark matter" refer to HYPOTHESES that attempt to EXPLAIN the observed events.

If you are the scientist that you represent yourself as being, you must surely already know this. I'm no scientist, and yet I know all this stuff. How is it that you, a self-proclaimed professional scientist, can be ignorant of such basic and obvious things as the difference between an observed event and a hypothetical explanation for the event?

No. I am saying (not implying) that "dark energy" and "dark matter" are not the events. They are merely hypothetical explanations for those events.

Um, no. I am saying they are not-very-convincing models invoked to explain observations.

How frustrating to converse with you, Traveler. You ignore silly little conventions like THE ACTUAL MEANING OF WORDS, instead insisting on plowing forward to try to establish your non-existent point, all the while pointedly ignoring what I have expressed in as clear a manner as I possibly can.

Science does not discover truth. By its nature, ultimate truth is assumed a priori to be unknowable. Science merely creates and refines models that attempt to quantize and characterize observed phenomena.

We may start out with these gems, all from a single post of yours:

Can you cite some scriptural teachings to substantiate your claim that those who follow the scientific method are procuring divine revelation?

I have not the least idea how you believe this disproves my statement. Can you elaborate?

You are mistaken in every particular. My argument is neither fantasy nor speculation; rather, it is an example that disproves your assertion. You claimed that the universe is defined as isotropic space. This is simply not true. Suppose we were to discover anisotropic space. Do you think we would immediately classify it as being something outside our universe? Of course not. Our universe is not defined by isotropism; rather, isotropism is thought to be a characteristic of our universe.

I suppose for the same reason you keep raping puppies and kittens, Traveler.

I have already done so.

I not only accept that possibility, I assume it's true. But we are not discussing the supposedly isotropic nature of the universe. Rather, we are discussing your assertion that the universe is defined as that area which is isotropic to physical law. Your assertion is false, as I have clearly shown.

I have nowhere argued this. If you think I have, please just produce the quote where I made any such claim.

The basis of my argument is logic and the meaning of words.

Two quick observations:

1. What you say is utterly non sequitur to what I wrote.

2. What of it? My point is that physics is not nature. Physics is a human construct.

Please demonstrate how this fails by definition.

Traveler, I must conclude that you really don't have any idea what you are talking about. My "claim" is not one of metrics and validation, but of the plain meaning of words.

Math and physics do not have a model of truth. That is the purview of revelation.

I take nothing away. Honest mathematicians and physicists are the very first to admit that they do not deal in "truth".

Science, and it's not even close.

I suspect this is because you have your eyes tightly shut.

Rather than continue this discussion in pieces - We have something called a universe that is made up of space time in which things exist. Matter (things with mass) alters space time. Though we talk about reference frame, we are in reality talking about a point or place in space time - and space time is continuous. Which means that all reference points are relative to space time and we also know that space time is not linear.

The fact that light travel is not linear means that it must be traveling through some medium that is not linear - or space time. Which is why light can be "focused". We also know that the speed and time (time being part of the fabric of space time) are directly related. Thus if speed is altered so is time. At the speed of light - time stops. This brings us to quantum physics at the quantum particle level and to what happens when light is stopped. According to the math space time folds in on itself and time is indeterminate (which is the same as stopped) and space ends at what is called singularity.

Long story short the concepts of isotropic and symmetry predict that singularities are also connected in space time as the same point (as both a boundary and a limit point) which results in what is call a "worm hole". Again because the universe (space-time) is isotropic and symmetric; this means that light must exist at the speed of light or light must stop - which is singularity. Thus singularity - not any point in space time - is the common reference frame. Interestingly - not just for our universe but all other universes - both in accord to expansion theory and brane theory regardless of dimensions.

One last thing about the universe being isotropic. If the universe is not isotropic - it would prove that the LDS concept of G-d is false (Abraham chapter 3).

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Rather than continue this discussion in pieces - We have something called a universe that is made up of space time in which things exist. Matter (things with mass) alters space time. Though we talk about reference frame, we are in reality talking about a point or place in space time - and space time is continuous. Which means that all reference points are relative to space time and we also know that space time is not linear.

The fact that light travel is not linear means that it must be traveling through some medium that is not linear - or space time. Which is why light can be "focused". We also know that the speed and time (time being part of the fabric of space time) are directly related. Thus if speed is altered so is time. At the speed of light - time stops. This brings us to quantum physics at the quantum particle level and to what happens when light is stopped. According to the math space time folds in on itself and time is indeterminate (which is the same as stopped) and space ends at what is called singularity.

Long story short the concepts of isotropic and symmetry predict that singularities are also connected in space time as the same point (as both a boundary and a limit point) which results in what is call a "worm hole". Again because the universe (space-time) is isotropic and symmetric; this means that light must exist at the speed of light or light must stop - which is singularity. Thus singularity - not any point in space time - is the common reference frame. Interestingly - not just for our universe but all other universes - both in accord to expansion theory and brane theory regardless of dimensions.

One last thing about the universe being isotropic. If the universe is not isotropic - it would prove that the LDS concept of G-d is false (Abraham chapter 3).

The Traveler

And what is the significance of our understanding of the universe and its features, theory or fact, when we believe that the realm in which God exists is made of "fine" matter that is not measurable to us? There is nothing that says that we can apply learned principles of gross matter (what we can measure) onto this unknown fine matter. That is just supposition. So, unless it is revealed, I am not catching why all this stuff matters.

[james12]

This entire conversation reminds me of a piece from "The Tao of Pooh". The chapter contains this song:

Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,

A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.

Ask me a riddle and I reply:

"Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie."

Why does a chicken do what it does? You don't know? Neither do we;

Neither does anyone else. Science likes to strut around and Act Smart by putting its labels on

everything, but if you look at them closely, you'll see that they don't really say much. "Genes"? "DNA"? Just scratching the surface. "Instinct"? You know what that means:

CURIOUS: "Why do birds fly South for the winter?"

SCIENCE: "Instinct."

It means, "We don't know." The important thing is, we don't really need to know. We don't need to imitate Nearsighted Science, which peers at the world through an electron microscope, looking for answers it will never find and coming up with more questions instead. We don't need to play Abstract Philosopher, asking unnecessary questions and coming up with meaningless answers. What we need to do is recognize Inner Nature and work with Things As They Are. When we don't, we get into trouble. (The Tao of Pooh, p. 50)

Science is wonderful, but I'm affraid it does not tell us why. It mearly strings facts together, puts names to events, and tells us how something occurs.

Much less will man's methods of science, history, and secular learning ever lead us to God. To know is not to be. It is left for those that trust their heart and act in faith. Using feeling and action to grow in truth.