Jump to content

Double Slit Experiment: the actual science.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, WalterP said:

Pantheory,

 

You've declared that your theory disallows any superluminal connections between separate locations.

 

So isn't that an assumption of local hidden variables, by another name?

 

Walter.

 

Obviously not. The existence of omnipresent background fields is a fact, not an assumption.

 

The theory of it would assert that one or more of these omnipresent fields could interfere with the results of quantum experiments rendering the science only predictable concerning the probability of occurrences.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We may as well have a discussion on record of what this experiment (and related experiments) actually entails as a more serious, science minded discussion:     

Walter, I'd like a Coors Light and a basket of wings.

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

And what is the Bell test designed to test if not the assumption (or use of) hidden variables?

 

We've moved on, Pantheory.

 

Please answer the above question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

We've moved on, Pantheory.

 

Please answer the above question.

 

"And what is the Bell test designed to test if not the assumption (or use of) hidden variables?"

 

The Bell test: The test results asserted that the Einstein-Rosen model of local hidden variables could not explain all of the observations of Quantum Mechanics, in particular quantum entanglement, referred to as a steering mechanism.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep39063

 

Scroll down to "Results"

 

This is a mainstream explanation describing that the types of hidden variable theories proposed by Einstein-Rosen, cannot explain all the observations of Quantum Mechanics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantheory said:

 

The Bell test, the results of which asserted that the Einstein-Rosen model of local hidden variables couldn't explain all of the observations of Quantum Mechanics, in particular quantum entanglement.

 

 

If the EPR model of LHV was correct then Bell tests would give a value of at least .333

 

But since the tests give a value of .250, then the EPR Local Hidden Variables cannot exist.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

So the last step is one you can see coming: perform an EXPERIMENT that tests the above; then see if the results are closer to QM's prediction of .250 or to the Local Hidden Variables scenario (i.e. at least .333). They cannot both be right. If they are NOT in accordance with the .333 prediction, then our initial assumption above - that A, B and C exist simultaneously - must be WRONG. Please recall: a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove any theory, and this forms the basis of our conclusion.

 

The prediction made by Einstein which formed the basis of his LHV model was that a superluminal connection between separate locations was impossible.

 

The prediction you make, which involves your model of LHV, depends the same thing and says the same thing.

 

You both invoke LHV's and you both hold to a subluminal connection between separate locations.

 

Pantheory, with so much overlap between you and Einstein, please explain to me why your prediction about the non-existence of superluminal connection is not falsified by the Bell test results.

 

Also, please explain how invoking a background field changes anything about the outcome of your prediction.

 

There are only two possible outcomes for your prediction; right or wrong.

 

How can yours be right if LHV's and subluminal connections are ruled out by the Bell test results?

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

 

If the EPR model of LHV was correct then Bell tests would give a value of at least .333

 

But since the tests give a value of .250, then the EPR Local Hidden Variables cannot exist.

 

http://drchinese.com/David/Bell_Theorem_Easy_Math.htm

 

So the last step is one you can see coming: perform an EXPERIMENT that tests the above; then see if the results are closer to QM's prediction of .250 or to the Local Hidden Variables scenario (i.e. at least .333). They cannot both be right. If they are NOT in accordance with the .333 prediction, then our initial assumption above - that A, B and C exist simultaneously - must be WRONG. Please recall: a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove any theory, and this forms the basis of our conclusion.

 

The prediction made by Einstein which formed the basis of his LHV model was that a superluminal connection between separate locations was impossible.

 

The prediction you make, which involves your model of LHV, depends the same thing and says the same thing.

 

You both invoke LHV's and you both hold to a subluminal connection between separate locations.

 

Pantheory, with so much overlap between you and Einstein, please explain to me why your prediction about the non-existence of superluminal connection is not falsified by the Bell test results.

 

Also, please explain how invoking a background field changes anything about the outcome of your prediction.

 

There are only two possible outcomes for your prediction; right or wrong.

 

How can yours be right if LHV's and subluminal connections are ruled out by the Bell test results?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

'Also, please explain how invoking a background field changes anything about the outcome of your prediction."

 

Omnipresent background fields could interfere with any and all of the quantum experiments that now require statistics to determine their probability, which is the essence of quantum mechanics. As I have also explained twice before that a background field explains quantum entanglement. If two electrons get very close to each other one will cause the other to flip its orientation because of the spinning particle vortex, therefore their spins will always be opposite one another. So a background field can explain everything that we've discussed.

 

Again the answer is extremely simple IMO. Most anyone could understand this. It simply boils down to the ignorance of omnipresent background fields concerning the present problems with quantum theory. Even if what I am proposing is exactly true it would not change the predictions or maths of quantum mechanics, only its theory. The maths, for the most part, only predict the probability of event occurrences.

 

The theory being proposed is that one or more of these omnipresent fields could interfere with the results of quantum experiments rendering the science only predictable based upon the probability of occurrences. For this not to be true QM would have to assume that none of these known fields could interact at the quantum scale, where in fact it is known that at least the ZPF and the Higgs field do interact.

 

Your quotes above have no relevance here which you should understand, since they do not address the existence of background-field interference and that type of local hidden variable theory. If you cannot understand this then there should be no more discussion concerning what I have proposed.

 

As you know, arguing without learning gains nothing. I have explained everything relating to your questions and have repeated myself a number of times. Since I am only talking about my own theory here, you should address any objections to it solely based upon your own logic with no unrelated references as you have posted above.

 

If what I have said does not make sense to you then we should move on to a different subject and thread. The purpose of this forum is science, and science vs. religion. Alternative theory can be discussed if relatively simple. This will be my last response to you in this thread unless your questions are solely based upon your own logic concerning the omnipresent field proposal being offered.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

If what I have said does not make sense to you then we should move on to a different subject and thread. The purpose of this forum is science, and science vs. religion. Alternative theory can be discussed if relatively simple. This will be my last response to you in this thread unless your questions are solely based upon your own logic concerning the omnipresent field proposal being offered.

 

 

It's ok, Pantheory.

 

I'll be withdrawing from this thread very soon anyway.  The reason for this is that I'm a habitual re-thinker.  What I mean is that I habitually step back from a thread and think about its wider context.  Last night I stepped back and considered something that you told me a good while back. 

 

That you reject almost everything to do with 20th and 21st century physics.  

 

I thought about what this meant and realized that any experiment that I might cite as falsifying your theory would come from 20th or 21st century physics.  But, since you reject almost all of that, there's probably nothing that I could cite from modern physics that you would accept as falsifying your theory.

 

It seems that there's no possibility of your theory ever being falsified - except on terms that are acceptable to you.

 

So, is a theory that can only be falsified by it's maker a properly scientific one?

 

I'd say no.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

It's ok, Pantheory.

 

I'll be withdrawing from this thread very soon anyway.  The reason for this is that I'm a habitual re-thinker.  What I mean is that I habitually step back from a thread and think about its wider context.  Last night I stepped back and considered something that you told me a good while back. 

 

That you reject almost everything to do with 20th and 21st century physics.  

 

I thought about what this meant and realized that any experiment that I might cite as falsifying your theory would come from 20th or 21st century physics.  But, since you reject almost all of that, there's probably nothing that I could cite from modern physics that you would accept as falsifying your theory.

 

It seems that there's no possibility of your theory ever being falsified - except on terms that are acceptable to you.

 

So, is a theory that can only be falsified by it's maker a properly scientific one?

 

I'd say no.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Thinking is great. In these days of entertainment and less reading, proper thinking can take you a long way :)

 

Almost always it's not 20th, 21th century physics I disagree with, because physics entails mostly the maths.  It's the experiments and observations that I believe are often misinterpreted. This is because experiments and observations will often be misinterpreted when the underlying theory is wrong.

 

A prime example is the double slit experiment in its various forms. Although all of these experiments are informative, their interpretations can be wrong in some respects IMO  based on wrong theory.

 

As far a falsification of theory is concerned, I believe there are a number of ways that my own theories could be falsified, but I also  realize that incorrect mainstream theory is more difficult to falsify with the exception of the Big Bang. To falsify a theory it is usually necessary to fully understand the theory in great detail, and the observations, experiments etc. that could falsify it. Also one should realize that a theory based upon something that never has existed, cannot be falsified such as the existence of a god, the spiritual world, pink unicorns, warped and expanding space, IMO etc.

 

A simple example of disproving a theory is the Big Bang:

 

Maybe two years from now when/if the James Webb space telescope is up and fully functioning with more than a year of observations, expected to be about 2023, it will be announced that they will have found at the farthest observable distances some old appearing, very large and red appearing elliptical and spiral galaxies, that all galaxies and galaxy clusters at those great distances look the same as nearby galaxies. They also might be able to observe galaxies having high metallicity in accord with predictions of cosmological models of a much older or infinite-age universe. These observations would be very strong evidence that the universe could likely be much older and that the Big Bang model would likely be wrong.

 

When this is discovered by many corroborating observations IMO mainstream theorists will scramble to adjust the BB theory to accommodate a much older universe. This can be done by fiddling with the Inflation hypothesis, the Hubble distance formula, and by many other ad hoc hypothetical means. But when such changes are being proposed, other mainstream theorists will be seriously looking for, and proposing alternative models to the BB.

 

The foundation of the BB theory is expanding space and the expansion of the universe. Expanding space, like warped space, can't be either proved or disproved because such a thing is a fantasy IMO, just like God and the spiritual world. But IMO the beginning of the end is in sight, as explained above, for the only theory in modern physics that I believe is totally wrong in every major aspect of it, the Big Bang model.

 

Even though I'm sure you disagree with much of what I've said above, IMO you will begin "to see the light." As we both know, science will always be self correcting.

 

With all due respect Walter, we are mostly veering off topic so I will no longer respond to off topic questions or comments. The topic is the double slit experiment, but if you wish to continue the conversation, start another thread with an appropriate title in this or another appropriate sub-forum, or ask me to do so.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

152935681_4183981071613257_230623638106916774_n.jpg

Yup, that's the kind of IMO stupid interpretations that I laugh at like your cartoon above, re: the delayed-choice double slit experiment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect Pantheory...

 

On Feb 13 I advised you that I had some questions that were off-topic.

 

On the 14th I asked you if a new thread would be the best way forward.

 

But you chose to respond to my new line of questioning.

 

I responded, writing this...

 

Hello again Pantheory and thank you for your helpful input.

 

Since you've elected to explore the question in this thread, I'll respond to you here, rather than create a new thread for that purpose.

 

So, if we've veered off topic, it was done so with your instigation and agreement.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

With all due respect Pantheory...

 

On Feb 13 I advised you that I had some questions that were off-topic.

 

On the 14th I asked you if a new thread would be the best way forward.

 

But you chose to respond to my new line of questioning.

 

I responded, writing this...

 

Hello again Pantheory and thank you for your helpful input.

 

Since you've elected to explore the question in this thread, I'll respond to you here, rather than create a new thread for that purpose.

 

So, if we've veered off topic, it was done so with your instigation and agreement.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

We both went off topic. Whenever I realize that I have veered too far off topic I stop myself. It's very easy for almost everyone to go off topic to a certain extent, but extended off-topic conversations should not continue. Our replies related to Quantum Theory which relates to the double slit experiment. But we both also realize there is not need to veer too far off topic into quantum theory when another on-topic thread in this or another subforum would better meet the necessary rule requirements.

 

Again, if you wish, we could start another thread; the subject could be quantum theory to continue this discussion, or another subject of your choosing. It appears that you like arguing about my theories since many are contrary to mainstream theory, if so I could provide some links to my scientific journal publishings, or the general theory upon request.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

 

Again, if you wish, we could start another thread; the subject could be quantum theory to continue this discussion, or another subject of your choosing. It appears that you like arguing about my theories since many are contrary to mainstream theory, if so I could provide some links to my scientific journal publishings, or the general theory upon request.

 

What would be the point?

 

In this forum, the only interpretations of anything scientific you'll accept are your own.

 

The same question applies to what you say about the James Webb Space Telescope data, due in 2023.

 

You'll only interpret that data through your own lens of alternative cosmology.

 

So, what's the point?

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

What would be the point?

 

In this forum, the only interpretations of anything scientific you'll accept are your own.

 

The same question applies to what you say about the James Webb Space Telescope data, due in 2023.

 

You'll only interpret that data through your own lens of alternative cosmology.

 

So, what's the point?

 

 

Now you're being cynical. I talk about problems with mainstream theory IMO, but if it is another non-mainstream opinion I will provide reference(s). You talk about problems with my theory in your opinion, and can provide references. Always remember that when my science opinions are not mainstream I always add that it's my opinion (IMO), and sometimes provide references to my related, published science journal papers, unless rarely I might forget this IMO addendum when no references are provided.

 

"You'll only interpret that data through your own lens of alternative cosmology."

 

As a brief mention, my all-encompassing theory and book are not just about a cosmology theory, it is called "a theory of everything" in modern nomenclature. This is why I am very familiar with, and have extensively studied modern physics, other than just cosmology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I am being cynical about you Pantheory, there's good grounds for it.

 

When I arrived in Ex-C I discovered that I'd missed meeting a member called Mark, who went by the handle BAA, which means Born Again Atheist.  Apparently he died in a car crash about two years before I joined.  People spoke highly of his science knowledge and so I made it my business to go back through his posts and read as much of his input as possible.  In doing so I found that you and he had clashed several times on science matters.

 

But, I also discovered that BAA corrected you and held you to account when you posted a misleading interpretation of data about distant galaxies in 2016.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

If you did it then, why wouldn't you be prepared to do that again in 2023 with the JWST data?

 

Hence my cynicism.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, WalterP said:

If I am being cynical about you Pantheory, there's good grounds for it.

 

When I arrived in Ex-C I discovered that I'd missed meeting a member called Mark, who went by the handle BAA, which means Born Again Atheist.  Apparently he died in a car crash about two years before I joined.  People spoke highly of his science knowledge and so I made it my business to go back through his posts and read as much of his input as possible.  In doing so I found that you and he had clashed several times on science matters.

 

But, I also discovered that BAA corrected you and held you to account when you posted a misleading interpretation of data about distant galaxies in 2016.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/71751-astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time/

 

If you did it then, why wouldn't you be prepared to do that again in 2023 with the JWST data?

 

Hence my cynicism.

 

 

 

True concerning BAA and myself. I first came here because my cosmology theory was being discussed in the science vs. religion forum. I found out about it by a google search of my theory at that time. After posting on that thread I decided to stay for a while. That was now almost exactly 8 years ago. :)

 

At first BAA thought I would hurt those on the fence between science and religion and told me to leave. He fought against alternative opinions and references tooth and nail after he had posted a mainstream posting. But after time through private PM's between us, we came to agreements and argued little after that.

 

Here's a joke you may like for those who like to argue 😯  "You can never win an argument when the other person is right. The best that you can do is to try to convince yourself and others that you are right." :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderator
3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

True concerning BAA and myself. I first came here because my cosmology theory was being discussed in the science vs. religion forum. I found out about it by a google search of my theory at that time. After posting on that thread I decided to stay for a while. That was now almost exactly 8 years ago. :)

 

At first BAA thought I would hurt those on the fence between science and religion and told me to leave. He fought against alternative opinions and references tooth and nail after he had posted a mainstream posting. But after time through private PM's between us, we came to agreements and argued little after that.

 

Here's a joke you may like for those who like to argue 😯  "You can never win an argument when the other person is right. The best that you can do is to try to convince yourself and others that you are right." :)

 

What happened is that myself and BAA were working through an issue with a member concerning claims that the Exodus was historical. She had gotten into some apologetic's that spun off of a former SDA who claimed to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and the "real" path of the Exodus. 

 

The whole thing was full of fallacious apologetic claims. The two of us were going through it with her page after page. Showing what was wrong with the claims. In the middle of this, the woman was being argumentative and resistant with us. And she cited you in the process as an example of mainstream science being wrong.

 

She was using links to your Pantheory as a way of trying to cling to the idea of christianity being true despite the problems with mainstream science showing christianity to be incorrect. Her point being, if mainstream science is wrong then she can wave of the hand dismiss it's critiques of christian claims. 

 

This is the context that led into you joining this site 8 years ago. I remember it very clearly. She dropped a link to your Pantheory and you arrived right after. And it took off with BAA right away. 

 

So the original push back you were getting from BAA and myself can be understood against the context of your entry. He backed off. And I backed off eventually after I realized that you are just an ex christian like the rest of us and have every right to continue on just like anyone else here. You just happen to have an alternative theory. But you're as ex christian as anyone else on this site. And do not support in any way, christian apologetics.

 

I also clearly remember telling you that I was going to stand down and then did so. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

What happened is that myself and BAA were working through an issue with a member concerning claims that the Exodus was historical. She had gotten into some apologetic's that spun off of a former SDA who claimed to have found Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and the "real" path of the Exodus. 

 

The whole thing was full of fallacious apologetic claims. The two of us were going through it with her page after page. Showing what was wrong with the claims. In the middle of this, the woman was being argumentative and resistant with us. And she cited you in the process as an example of mainstream science being wrong.

 

She was using links to your Pantheory as a way of trying to cling to the idea of christianity being true despite the problems with mainstream science showing christianity to be incorrect. Her point being, if mainstream science is wrong then she can wave of the hand dismiss it's critiques of christian claims. 

 

This is the context that led into you joining this site 8 years ago. I remember it very clearly. She dropped a link to your Pantheory and you arrived right after. And it took off with BAA right away. 

 

So the original push back you were getting from BAA and myself can be understood against the context of your entry. He backed off. And I backed off eventually after I realized that you are just an ex christian like the rest of us and have every right to continue on just like anyone else here. You just happen to have an alternative theory. But you're as ex christian as anyone else on this site. And do not support in any way, christian apologetics.

 

I also clearly remember telling you that I was going to stand down and then did so. 

 

Yup, I remember you telling me that but didn't know of what came before, as you have now explained.  I guess BAA was right in that some Christians will use failures of mainstream science theory to back their religious claims. I try to be gentle concerning my explanations for most Christians on this site since most appear to me to have good motives -- to convert us so that we can go to heaven with them. :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

152935681_4183981071613257_230623638106916774_n.jpg

 

Particles cant possibly have intelligence or awareness.

Why not? 

Uhhhh.

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/5-times-everyone-thought-science-was-crackpot-only-to-be-proven-spectacularly-wrong

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

True concerning BAA and myself. I first came here because my cosmology theory was being discussed in the science vs. religion forum. I found out about it by a google search of my theory at that time. After posting on that thread I decided to stay for a while. That was now almost exactly 8 years ago. :)

 

At first BAA thought I would hurt those on the fence between science and religion and told me to leave. He fought against alternative opinions and references tooth and nail after he had posted a mainstream posting. But after time through private PM's between us, we came to agreements and argued little after that.

 

Here's a joke you may like for those who like to argue 😯  "You can never win an argument when the other person is right. The best that you can do is to try to convince yourself and others that you are right." :)

 

You begin your post with the word 'true', Pantheory.

 

So, with the truth in mind, would you please supply true answers to these questions?

 

1.  Did BAA correct you and hold you to account for posting a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies?

 

2. Was this the only example of where you posted a misleading interpretation about distant galaxies?

 

3. Is what Thought2Much said about you true - that you've been banned from various science forums?

 

4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C?

 

5. Did you break your agreement with BAA and present only your side of the story and only your interpretation of the data?

 

Since Josh has weighed in about what happened back then, discussion of those times is now on the table and so you really can't use the excuse that my questions are off-topic to avoid answering them.

 

Therefore, please answer them Pantheory.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C?

 

Mr Galilei , did you present both the Holy Roman Catholic understanding that the Sun circles the Earth along with your own pathetic alternate theory to give a balanced picture to the public? 

 

Walter, if you were alive in the 1500s watching the spectacle of Galileo unfold, would you be for or against the heretical non-mainstream heliocentric model? 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, midniterider said:

4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C?

 

Mr Galilei , did you present both the Holy Roman Catholic understanding that the Sun circles the Earth along with your own pathetic alternate theory to give a balanced picture to the public? 

 

Walter, if you were alive in the 1500s watching the spectacle of Galileo unfold, would you be for or against the heretical non-mainstream heliocentric model? 

 

Hi midniterider,

 

4." Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C?"

 

I'm going to answer Walter's brief question here since it's a brief follow up to my comments above to Josh.

 

The answer to Walter's question 4 is yes. When posting a non-mainstream link or proposal, my agreement with BAA was for me to add to it my interpretation of the mainstream version(s) in simple words, with appropriate mainstream links when possible. If there was a mainstream video or link that explained their version simply, then that would suffice.  In exchange he agreed to back off from aggressive comments and questions. 

 

all the best midniterider, Forrest

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all off-topic responses, questions, comments, etc. please refer to this thread in Rants and Replies. If yout question is based upon science alone, alert me and we can start another thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/85086-rants-replies-double-slit/?tab=comments#comment-1236742

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, midniterider said:

4. Did you have a private agreement with BAA to present both sides of the story, your alternative cosmology and the mainstream one, to give a balanced picture for the members of Ex-C?

 

Mr Galilei , did you present both the Holy Roman Catholic understanding that the Sun circles the Earth along with your own pathetic alternate theory to give a balanced picture to the public? 

 

Walter, if you were alive in the 1500s watching the spectacle of Galileo unfold, would you be for or against the heretical non-mainstream heliocentric model? 

 

I'm not laughing, midniterider.

 

Instead I'm trying to figure out your take on this.

 

If a Christian tries to put their agenda and spin on scientific data, you'd like them to be called to account?

 

But if an alternative theorist tries to put their agenda and spin on scientific data, you're not bothered?

 

It's ok so long as its not the Christians doing it?

 

Seems kind of inconsistent to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

I'm not laughing, midniterider.

 

Instead I'm trying to figure out your take on this.

 

If a Christian tries to put their agenda and spin on scientific data, you'd like them to be called to account?

 

But if an alternative theorist tries to put their agenda and spin on scientific data, you're not bothered?

 

It's ok so long as its not the Christians doing it?

 

Seems kind of inconsistent to me.

 

 

 

I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it? Or just deflect? 

 

The question again: Walter, if you were alive in the 1500s watching the spectacle of Galileo unfold, would you be for or against the heretical non-mainstream heliocentric model? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear timeless, breadthless Being Above, send us once more a devout follower to shew us the path to your infinite coherent heaven!  With neither meal nor morsel in the den it appears some here are growing restless.  We await your infinite power to sate the hungry!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.