swansont

I think our view of omnipotent is quite straightforward, and if a deity is not, it should not be advertised as such. It’s one of those topics that people debate; some conclude there is no deity and others don’t think about it too much because of the implications. (like it’s a choice rather than a limitation of power) What does this have to do with omnipotence? Are you simply incapable of sticking to a topic, and restraining yourself from proselytizing?

Moderator NoteAs you were informed in the other thread, we’re done discussing this theorem or anything connected with it.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the gravitational acceleration at the event horizon can be small r = 2GM/c^2 g = GM/r^2 (Newtonian) so g = c^4/4GM If the mass is really big, g can be quite small.

It has gravity, so it’s much the same as how we can determine the mass of a normal star - it causes an acceleration of ~GM/r^2 and anything in orbit is subject to that.

Moderator NoteFrom rule 2.7: Advertising and spam is prohibited. We don't mind if you put a link to your noncommercial site (e.g. a blog) in your signature and/or profile, but don't go around making threads to advertise it. Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone. Users advertising commercial sites will be banned. Attached documents should be for support material only; material for discussion must be posted IOW, linking to your substack to have people read the paper violates the rule twice. This is a discussion forum, not your blog or a platform to advertise your work.

Apparently not Math is a tool of science. An hypothesis that leads to logical contradictions will never make it to being a theory; the evidence won’t match up with the model. But the situation here is that the logic is flawed. As with your conjecture, you are proceeding via faulty path, starting with a flawed premise.

That must be it. /s I said nothing to the contrary. The final arbiter of science is experiment/observation. The only way to disprove a theory is to show that it doesn't match with experiment. Any argument about reason boils down to argument from incredulity (as I previously said) but science is under no obligation to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, or be understandable.

I thought God was the ultimate off switch. Or is she not omnipotent?

You’re so close to getting it! You are pretending to. I’m not sure who “we” refers to. Science uses more than logic/reason, and reason doesn’t have the final say.

And yet one can make statements, such as the paradox I mentioned A rut? Since 1925? AYFKM? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_quantum_mechanics I’m not sure why I have to. I think the connection to QM is manufactured, since physics worked prior to reason and rational thought. There can’t be a causal connection as cause must happen before. Right? The bottom line is that QM actually works. Any argument that says it doesn’t violates reason.

X-rays are pink, signal from normal matter in blue, just like it says Nobody said that’s what’s shown Seeing as you’re in simple denial mode regarding mainstream science and have nothing to offer that meets the requirements of speculations, there’s no point in continuing

I don’t think that you have defined anything well enough (reason isn’t defined at all), and language is imprecise. Logic has a more solid foundation, and logic can be used to disprove logical arguments; you can make faulty arguments and you can use false premises. You can also have issues like the Epimenides paradox (the Cretan who proclaimed “All Cretans are liars”) So I think your axiom is ill-defined and a false statement on which you built an argument. Like the geometry example I gave, you might be able to build a system based on that axiom, but to apply it to our universe has additional requirements

From the linked article: - the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, including the “acoustic peaks” that simply cannot exist without some form of dark matter. - the clustering pattern seen in the large-scale structure of the Universe - the behavior of two clusters of galaxies colliding Too bad, but that’s hardly a serious objection. I don’t see any reason to waste time and effort arguing about it. You are free to come up with a rigorous analysis to try and explain it away. i.e. not the hand-wave you presented.

Moderator NoteI don’t see enough substance for discussion. Improperly-formatted equations with no explanation of meaning or examples of how they apply to anything.

You can use reason to point out flaws in reasoning, and saying that an axiom doesn’t hold is not “denying reason” Your axioms are not unassailable pillars of truth, and this has an air of “How dare you contradict me!”

Doesn’t matter in steady-state, since gravity isn’t changing.

Yes, it is. What lifeline? All I see is argument from incredulity. See above comment on MOND. Any new explanation has to cover what we already know. “Adjust your equations” doesn’t even begin to address anything, because the devil's in the details. The adjustments can’t break what already works.

With no evidence to support the suggestion, other than the huge systems. Because GR keeps passing all the tests. MOND, for example, explains the rotation curves, but fails to explain things like gravitational lensing, gravitational time dilation and redshift, Shapiro time delay, and more. And dark matter explains more than rotation curves. https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/ask-ethan-94-could-dark-matter-not-exist-de5cd810e446

Again: you are ignoring the fact that rotation speed is experimentally determined by red- and blue-shift of the spectra. Gravitation tells you the predicted speed. And yes, we assume the laws of physics apply everywhere. There are implications to assuming otherwise, which do not match with observation. Then you must abandon any notion of “now” having meaning for things that are not co-located. The laws of physics accommodate the speed of light. Conservation of angular momentum means that an object’s rotational parameters won’t change unless there’s an external torque, so it doesn’t matter when you measure the speed. What’s your evidence thst there’s an external influence changing the speed? The speed of gravity in GR is already factored in. Not that it matters; if the central mass isn’t changing, gravity is not changing, so the time lag is irrelevant. Any effect due to communicating with the “other side” is similarly constant, unless you have some evidence of mass appearing or disappearing (which violates conservation of energy).

As I said, it can be used for approximation. It’s that “different set of conditions” that matters here; that’s where you see axioms fail. And when/where axioms fail, the system built on them is invalid. If, and only if, your system is valid. Otherwise it’s just “because I said so” and it’s a circular argument because it’s all part of the same system.

The choice to do something, or not, is not up to science. Often not up to scientists, either. So, gods are not omnipotent then? Not provided by science in many cases. That’s one reason for the humanities requirements in college/university. Or psychology, philosophy, history and sociology (and perhaps others)

Yup. You find them in math, and the math is internally consistent, but math is not necessarily representative of the behavior of nature. That’s an additional burden that science imposes. e.g. Euclidean geometry. We know it’s not how the universe behaves (though it can be used for approximations under a lot of circumstances). It’s internally consistent but at least one axiom will fail if you’re in another geometry.

Natural and real aren’t contradictory or incompatible in any way, so I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to skip over the context that I’m sure you have in your head, but we can’t read minds, so this just reads as a non-sequitur. So what?

Axioms are made up; they can be incorrect. It only matters for internal consistency of the theorem. The idea must still match up with experiment. Many proposed theories fail to do so. The thing is, even if it were relevant, you’re made reason a result of causality, not determinism. In any event, you can’t base QM on human behavior. Tell me, what was QM like before humans existed, and there was no “we use it”?

What “implication”? All of which is beside the point. There are atheists and agnostics who are happily married.