Intelligent Design vs Evolution

On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 13:59:01 GMT, "kenseto"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


"Nick Roberts" wrote in message
...
In message
"kenseto" wrote:


The E-Matrix is stationary, structured and elastic. It is composed of
E-Strings. There is no luminiferous aether wind. Objects are moving
in the E-Matrix.

None of which affects the point I made, which is that you are wrong to
state that the luminiferous aether moved. The luminiferous aether was
the medium through which light moved - the "aether wind" referred to
the effect caused by the movement of the Earth through the aether, not
movement of the aether itself.

So please explain how your E-Matrix differs from the now-discredited
luminiferous aether. Alternatively, you could repeat what you did with
your last post, which was to ignore the question I posed, and restate
the same error that caused me to post in the first place. Your choice.

The aether was not discredited. Read the paper in the following link that
explains why the MMX null result is not a refutation of the aether. Also the
results of the Pound and Rebka experiments show that the direction of
absolute motion is in the vertical direction.

Ken Seto

There is no absolute - only relative.

--
Bob.

In message
"kenseto" wrote:


"Nick Roberts" wrote in message
. ..
In message
"kenseto" wrote:


"CWatters" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
The null results of the MMX are due to the direction of absolute
motion is in the vertical direction.

But the absolute motion ISN'T in the vertical direction.

This is a bogus assumption. The Pound and Rebka experiments show
that absolute motion is in the vertical direction.

Actually, they showed that photons are redshifted in a
gravitational field, and that the degree of redshift is a function
of the intensity of the field. What this has to do with absolute
motion being in "the vertical direction" is not clear to me.

Any shift in frequency is due to motion wrt the light rays.

Well, yes, if you are allowed to assume that your theory is correct,
then it follows that your theory is correct. If, however, you are
require to provide evidence, then General Relativity wins all hands
down: GR predicted the redshift, and Pound & Rebka confirmed it.

The fact that it is in a gravitational field is no exception. BTW this
interpretation lead to the idea that gravity is due to the
gravitating objects have the same direction of absolute motion in the
E-Matrix.

And in English, please?

This is a faulty assumption. The null result of the MMX can only
be obtained if the apparatus is moving vertically wrt the
horizontal plane of the light rays. Absolute motion is that
motion of an object wrt the light rays in the E-Matrix. Any
detection frequency shift of the light rays is an indication of
the absolute motion of the observer.

And this is where your proposed experiment fails. "Vertical" is a
local property of the Earth, not a global property (i.e. a vertical
vector at one point on the earth will differ from a vertical vector
at another point).

Wrong ....you can name any direction as vetical.

This is drivel. You have said, if I understand you correctly, that MM
failed because they weren't set up to detect motion in the vertical
plane. Now you are saying that any direction is vertical. How then were
they incorrectly aligned, if vertical is whatever you want to call it?

It is not a property of the earth. If you are out in space you can
call any direction as vertical.

So what does "Absolute motion in the vertical direction" mean, given
that "vertical" has no absolute meaning?

Given that the Earth will be moving through your E-Matrix (aka the
luminiferous aether) en masse, where you set up your experiment
will define vertical (i.e. vertical is relative to location). You
therefore require that _absolute_ motion is motion along a
_relative_ vector, which is nonsense.

You don't know what you are talking about.

So educate me. Explain your so-called theory without contradicting
yourself (as in changing the definition of vertical at the drop of a
hat), without simply quoting your paper (I have, indeed, read it, and
it makes no scientific sense) and without simply stating that I'm not
smart enough to follow you.

--
Nick Roberts tigger @ orpheusinternet.co.uk

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which
can be adequately explained by stupidity.

SeppoP wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"SeppoP" wrote in message
...

It is a
Designed entity. Similarly the S-Particles are repulsive to the E-Strings
and this allow them to move freely in the E-Matrix. The combination of
the E-Matrix and the S-Particles suggest an artificial mechanism created
by the Designer.

Perhaps there exists a yet-undiscovered entity - G-string, which ties them
together without a need for a designer? What makes you discount that
possibility?

Hmmmm. The existence and properties of the hypothetical G-String! Another
research topic for the bikini babes ^W^W research assistants in the Aquatic
Eve Facility.

Questions to be answered: How small can the G-String be before you can't see
it any more? Why is it visible over here, but not over here? If we remove
the G-String entirely, will I get in trouble with the vice squad?

--
Christopher Heiny
Professor of Bizarre Theories
University of Ediacara

..

"kenseto" wrote in message
m...

"CWatters" wrote in message
news

"kenseto" wrote in message
. ..
No the combination of the E-Matrix and the S-Particles suggest that it
is
a
designed machanism created by an Designer.

Why couldn't it be chance?

Sure it could....but then you would have to explain "chance" and what are
they processes involve that give rise to chance. I prefer "a designed
mechanism created by a Designer".

If so he's rather error prone.

and no I don't intend to define error.