Pharyngula: Please go laugh at UncommonDescent

#1

How much longer do you think that comment will stay online?

Posted by: FishyFred | June 20, 2006 8:32 PM

#2

Did you actually expect anything else, PZ?

Posted by: MNDarwinist | June 20, 2006 8:39 PM

#3

Dembski finds an arrow sticking out of a tree, paints a dartboard around it, and pronounces BULLS-EYE!

Posted by: Mr. Person | June 20, 2006 8:54 PM

#4

Naturally these mental couch potatoes characterize gravity as the "strongest" in nature, considering their naive, static, hierarchical view of the world. Plus, they worship Isaac Newton for having been a religious lunatic, despite the fact that he wrongly postulated instantaneous action at a distance.

Posted by: Kristine | June 20, 2006 9:01 PM

#5

What a maroon. Gravity overwhelms the electromagnetic force in neutron stars because neutron stars are electrically neutral, and so there is no net attraction or repulsion. That's why there are neutron stars, but no proton stars.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, and with DaveTard, we're talking a very little learning.

BTW, I'd argue that the Pound experiment wasn't exactly a purely laboratory measurement, in that it relied on the graviational field of the earth, which is hardly in the lab. One might as well argue an observation of the sun is a lab measurement.

Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 20, 2006 9:08 PM

#6

Am I missing something? Isn't the entire thread him picking on a rhetorical question???? Sure, DaveScot, whatever you say...[backs away slowly from the crazy]

Posted by: Carlie | June 20, 2006 9:31 PM

#7

Lol, DaveScot implicitly admits that the designer "poof magic" force is not the strongest force in nature. Ha ha haha ha!

Posted by: 386sx | June 20, 2006 9:33 PM

#8

Paul wrote:

"At one point, he claims that "By the way, gravity is the strongest force in nature." As you might guess, he's jumped on for that, and so he rushes off to find some supporting evidence...and gets it, he says, from John G. Cramer, professor of physics.

Gravity is the WEAKEST force in nature.

Cramer writes:

"Curiously, in some ways gravity is also the strongest force in the universe. It always adds, never subtracts, and can build up until it overwhelms all other forces.."

Total crap.

If gravity is the weakest force in nature (which it is), one is hard pressed to explain how it accounts for the formation of the gross structure of the universe from the diffuse cloud of gas and dust that is postulated in the primal universe after the Big Bang. If he doesn't say this then he's admitting that gravitational attraction is not strong enough (which it isn't) to explain the formation of galaxies and superclusters and that some other, yet to be discovered forces are in play. Perhaps electromagnetic?

Posted by: Charlie Wagner | June 20, 2006 9:38 PM

#9

My favorite line from DaveScot: "Go fly a kite you ignorant buffoon. I've forgotten more about physics than you'll ever know."

Wow. Has he been picking up debate techniques from Bill O'Reilly?

I posted a polite (I think) correction to DS's bloviating comments regarding gravity overwhelming the other forces. I have saved my original comment in case it gets hammered later on.

I gave up visiting UD once DaveScot basically took over the blog. Watching Connie Chung "sing" was a pleasure compared to reading this blather.

Posted by: wheatdogg | June 20, 2006 9:43 PM

#10

Well, in one sense gravity is the strongest force: the effect of gravity on a given macroscopic object is likely to be far stronger than the effect of the other three forces combined. It's the weakest force in the sense that when four objects of identical mass each exert a different force, the object exerting gravity will be by far the weakest (so for example, electrons' motion in an atom is dominated by the electromagnetic force). But in ordinary circumstances, a macroscopic object will never be subjected to a large mass exerting one of the other three forces.

Posted by: Alon Levy | June 20, 2006 9:51 PM

#11

Charlie, try this thought experiment: If you were to jump off the Empire State Building, the entire gravitational pull of the Earth would pull you down at the leisurely pace of 32.2 feet per second per second. Shortly thereafter, the repulsion between your valence electrons and the sidewalk's valence electrons would make you stop in a fraction of a second.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 20, 2006 10:01 PM

#12

There's hardly any point in commenting about UnCommonDescentIntoMadness since the site is not even street theatre. Dembski is totally irrelevant these days. He has no academic position. He's published nothing. He's basically an idiot in sheep's clothing. The fact that he lets his website be run by the moronic DaveScot is beyond theatre. I'd say that Dembski has descended to the Ken Ham of Infomational Theatrics. The question is, where is rock bottom for young William?

Posted by: Bill | June 20, 2006 10:28 PM

#13

Bronze Dog wrote:
"Charlie, try this thought experiment: If you were to jump off the Empire State Building, the entire gravitational pull of the Earth would pull you down at the leisurely pace of 32.2 feet per second per second. Shortly thereafter, the repulsion between your valence electrons and the sidewalk's valence electrons would make you stop in a fraction of a second."

I would accelerate at a rate of 32 ft/s^2. My pace (velocity) would depend on how far I had fallen and on how much air resistance I encountered. In addition, the valence electrons in my body would not be an issue because atoms are electrically neutral, the negative charges of the electrons being balanced by the positively charged protons in the nucleus.
Clearly, more massive bodies have a greater gravitational force but this is only because of their greater size. When you factor out the difference in mass, you can unequivocally declare that gravity is the weakest force.
http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/gravity/force.html

Are you saying it is not?

Posted by: Charlie Wagner | June 20, 2006 10:31 PM

#14

Let's not forget that at the beginning of this very same thread, Dave says:

"Here's a clue from old Dave, Glen. When you find you've dug yourself into a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging."

You can't write this sort of comedy.

Posted by: Tiax | June 20, 2006 10:33 PM

#15

I know we're talking about Dembski here, but how long can he keep monkey boy DaveScot under his tent after all the hysterical blunders he's fallen head first into over the last few months. It's really out of control. You'd think that even Demsbki would see what an imbecile this guy is. He can't be good for anything other than our entertainment can he?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 20, 2006 10:39 PM

#16

Charlie, it's true your atoms are electrically neutral overall. But they're points of positive charges surrounded by flitting negative charges. When two non-bonding atoms get within an angstrom of each other, the shells of negative charges repell each other. Negative repells negative.

If valence electron-valence electron repulsion didn't exist, there wouldn't be any "solid" objects. Atoms are mostly nothing by volume, so they'd pass right through each other.

High school chemistry and high school physics. Heck, it's even less than that: Bill Nye covered it on his kids' show using a fan as a metaphor for the electron shell.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | June 20, 2006 10:53 PM

#17

Don't get me started on Van der Waals and Coulombic forces!

Posted by: BlueIndependent | June 20, 2006 10:57 PM

#18

Here's another thought experiment (or you can do it for real). Get yourself two little bar magnets. Devise some kind of holder into which you can slide both magnets so that they just fit, end to end. Slide the first magnet into your holder, then slide in the second so as like poles point toward each other. If you get the fit right, the second magnet will hover above the first, end to end.

Now think about the second magnet. The entire weight of the earth is pulling it downwards, yet that first tiny magnet is keeping it up in the air. So which is the stronger force - gravity or (electro)magnetism?

Posted by: neils | June 20, 2006 11:05 PM

#19

Here's another thought experiment (or you can do it for real). Get yourself two little bar magnets. Devise some kind of holder into which you can slide both magnets so that they just fit, end to end. Slide the first magnet into your holder, then slide in the second so as like poles point toward each other. If you get the fit right, the second magnet will hover above the first, end to end.

Now think about the second magnet. The entire weight of the earth is pulling it downwards, yet that first tiny magnet is keeping it up in the air. So which is the stronger force - gravity or (electro)magnetism?

Posted by: neils | June 20, 2006 11:07 PM

#20

Oops. I never double post! Apologies.

Posted by: neils | June 20, 2006 11:08 PM

#21

Repulsion between matter and matter is not primarily electrostatic. It's quantum mechanical, mostly a result of the exclusion principle. Two heium atoms, once you have them withing the radius of very weak van der Waals attraction, repel each other. Why? Because they have filled 1s shells. Two hydrogen atoms, on the other hand, do not repel until you get them closer than the equilibrium H-H bond distance, and there the repulsion is internuclear. When you dive off the Empire State, and decelerate rapidly in the last few nanometers of your travel, blame Pauli for your demise, not Coulomb.

Posted by: Gerard Harbison | June 20, 2006 11:43 PM

#22

Excerpt from DaveScot's response to Comment #33.

I'm an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests).

So... no degree? Anyone who cites an inflated IQ as their first intellectual credential has no common sense.

Posted by: FishyFred | June 21, 2006 12:12 AM

#23

GRAVITY IS JUST A THEORY!!!!

WHAT ABOUT PYGMIES + DWARVES??!??!?

Posted by: Dan | June 21, 2006 12:44 AM

#24

Two things I've realized about DaveScot (this is the first thing of his I've read at length):

1) He's an ass. He doesn't seem to be interested in discovery or learning as much as he's interested in not giving any ground on anything. He seems terrified to even admit that he might have worded something badly or ineffectively.

2.) I can barely make it through some of his arguments. They're completely not cogent. All of his bullshit about neutron stars and gravity and electromagnetic forces is just mind-numbing and REALLY oversimplifying all of the issues that go in to everything.

Does anyone else think that the ID-ers embrace of the world of physics is a little more than ironic? People that think "It was all designed!" should not get to claim to be supporters of or experts on a subject that currently states that "God plays dice" with the most fundamental pieces of the universe.

Also, if someone is registered over at DaveScot's site, I'd like to see them ask him the following question: If gravity is the "strongest" force, then why were gravitationally bound objects the LAST to "condense" out of the Big Bang?

If I remember correctly, quarks and gluons condensed out first to make baryons and mesons (strong force). As things cooled down more, the electrons were "caught" by the protons (baryons) to make electrically neutral atoms (electromagnetic force & QM), and then MANY years later, objects bound by the gravitational force formed.

Argh...infuriating.

Posted by: JohnPhys | June 21, 2006 1:42 AM

#25

What bothers me most about the thread -- both here and at UncommonDescent -- is that by any reasonable reading Glen D did make a mistake about labs and relativistic effects of gravity and DaveScot's corrections with respect to showing relativistic effects of gravity in a lab were right on the money.

As Dave points out, this was first done around 1959, with the detection of gravitational redshift in a lab at Harvard. Glen's attempts in the thread to get around this demonstration of what he was requesting were not at all convincing.

By having BOTH sides making simple errors, and then trying to make hay out of the errors of the other side while ignoring those from our "team" is, IMHO, counterproductive.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart

Posted by: Sylas | June 21, 2006 1:51 AM

#26

here's the simple truth:

the electromagnetic replusion between 2 electrons is 4.17 x 10^42 times their gravitational attraction.

Posted by: djlactin | June 21, 2006 3:58 AM

#27

Some blogs are plagued by trolls.

Davescot demonstrates what happens when a blog is run by a troll :o)

Posted by: Alexander Kjerulf | June 21, 2006 7:06 AM

#28

Charlie Wagner said, "Clearly, more massive bodies have a greater gravitational force but this is only because of their greater size. "

All wrong my friend. A more massive body has a greater gravity than a less massive body REGARDLESS of its size. What matters in the comparison is the MASS. The mere length and breadth of the objects means nothing. For example: Imagine all of the mass of the earth were concentrated into a sphere the size of a golf ball. The gravitational effects that that object would have on you are exactly the same as the gravitational effects you feel from the earth as it is at equivalent distances from the center of the mass in question.

Posted by: Nyarlathotep | June 21, 2006 7:38 AM

#29

Oh dear, another "theory in crisis".
The Onion becomes reality....
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bettter fire up the lawyers.......looks like
another trip to the courtroom is coming up....

Posted by: Dark Matter | June 21, 2006 8:50 AM

#30

Well, I asked DS what his physics background was. His reply essentially was that he has an extremely high IQ and is largely self-taught. I posted a reply, which has not made it to the light of day, asking whether he had any formal schooling in physics. So, he has not replied to the question.

Posted by: wheatdogg | June 21, 2006 9:25 AM

#31

Hello. I'm an individual with an IQ that's none of your business, but is high enough to handle most daily tasks. I also have enough common sense and general knowledge to know that the SAT test really has nothing to do with IQ testing, that IQ is not a complete measure of intelligence (and isn't all that great at being merely a partial measure), and that I should not discuss subjects in which I do not have even a basic layperson's knowledge.

Together, these facts demonstrate that I am approximately 1.38 kajillion times smarter than DaveScot.

Posted by: Caledonian | June 21, 2006 10:15 AM

#32

Further note:

I know enough about human psychology to recognize that IQ scores generally are not affected by frontal lobe damage, even that as extensive as an old-style lobotomy with a modified ice pick. If DS was not mistaken about his IQ, perhaps he should look into his frontal lobe quotient, because I think he's running a little low.

Posted by: Caledonian | June 21, 2006 10:19 AM

#33

Kristine: And in spite of Newton having being an Arian, too.

(Isn't Dave Scot supposed to be a physicist? Or am I messing up my kooks?)

Posted by: Keith Douglas | June 21, 2006 10:59 AM

#34

Love DaveScot's "self-made millionaire" comment. No doubt it's true in the strictest sense, but you don't usually make a big deal of it when you've earned your fortune simply by being in the right company at the right time. He, and hundreds of other Dell employees were given stock options as part of their compensation back in the early 90s. Given the company's explosive growth up to the turn of the century, all he had to do to earn his millions was sit at his desk and watch the value of his stock options sky rocket.

Similarly, a few months ago he made a big deal of his four engineering patents (actually Dell's, but he worked on them). I know engineers and programmers in my company who have dozens of similar patents, some of which have earned millions for the company. They're intelligent people, but they're not supergeniuses.

Anyone with real talent and entreprenurial drive would have turned those three million dollars of his into a massive fortune years ago, not quit his day job to spend his time sitting on his ass in front of a computer berating and belittling anybody who dare question his Dear Leader, Bill Dembski.

Posted by: tacitus | June 21, 2006 11:52 AM

#35

It is a perplexing thread.

Glen started with a question which purpose and relevance wasn't exactly clear. GR effects are now possible to measure in clock rates between clocks separated a few decimeters in earths gravity field. Evolution effects are now possible to measure in bacteria in test tubes. I have some sympathy for the argument that GR effects are hard to show entirely in the lab. I also have some sympathy with the argument that evolution effects are hard to show entirely in the lab. I just think it is a hard argument to do.

But DaveScot, genius IQ though he professes to have, stepped in it. It shows that even geniuses may be shit stupid as the rest of us, always a comfort.

Gravitation is the weakest of natures fundamental interactions in form of coupling strength at normal energies. This is the reasonable comparison here.

But there are all the caveats that DaveScot may use. Gravitation coupling strength runs faster with energy so eventually it catches up with the other forces. Gravitation distorts spacetime and forms singularities that hides the other forces. Gravitation is what mostly forms cosmology. (But inflation and vacuum energy does too.) There are weaker effective forces around at normal energies. So this is also a hard argument to do, at least on the Uncommonly Massive blog.

Where DaveScot really messes up when he ganders at Glen's website and declares him a whackjob, as if it has something to do with the arguments in the thread. I have respect for Glen and I think he says interesting things at times. (This wasn't one of them. :-) The fact that he exposes a whacky and even crackpot side on his web is besides the point. I would jump on him as I do on Charlie if he tries to discuss his crackpot ideas. He doesn't, so I don't.

Charlie says:

"If gravity is the weakest force in nature (which it is), one is hard pressed to explain how it accounts for the formation of the gross structure of the universe from the diffuse cloud of gas and dust that is postulated in the primal universe after the Big Bang. If he doesn't say this then he's admitting that gravitational attraction is not strong enough (which it isn't) to explain the formation of galaxies and superclusters and that some other, yet to be discovered forces are in play."

I think that is an ongoing concern. The large scale structure is explained by inflation blowing up the initial randomness, mostly quantum. But galaxy formation was helped by the dark matter that WMAP and galaxy dynamics sees. (Dark matter is the most researched explanation, I think.) I'm not sure if this is the whole explanation, no one knows what dark matter is, and galaxy dynamics is itself incompletely understood, and may have some EM interaction components. But if it is, inflation and gravitation is the main explanation.

Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson | June 21, 2006 12:08 PM

#36

tacitus:

Love DaveScot's "self-made millionaire" comment. No doubt it's true in the strictest sense, but you don't usually make a big deal of it when you've earned your fortune simply by being in the right company at the right time.

I don't think that's a "self-made" fortune in any sense. Actually, in the strictest sense, almost nobody does anything by themselves, and even successful entrepreneurs usually had at least a solid middle class upbringing and education. However, I will give credit to Michael Dell for taking initiative and building a fortune largely due to his own effort. That's what we usually mean by "self-made."

A startup employee who's along for the ride can maybe get a little credit for taking a marginally greater risk than someone who looks for a job in a big, successful firm. But in my experience, startup salaries and benefits are good (in the well-funded ones anyhow), and the stock options are just an extra incentive. I cannot imagine referring to this as a "self-made" fortune. DaveScot may have been lucky or may even have been smart to cast his lot with Dell. But if he had the ability to make $3 million by himself, he hasn't demonstrated it.

Posted by: PaulC | June 21, 2006 12:29 PM

#37

man, physics and cosmology creep me out. Guess that's why I went with the turtle physiology thing...
And Dembski's blog is nearly always a laff riot.

Posted by: CCP | June 21, 2006 12:57 PM

#38

What bothers me most about the thread -- both here and at UncommonDescent -- is that by any reasonable reading Glen D did make a mistake about labs and relativistic effects of gravity and DaveScot's corrections with respect to showing relativistic effects of gravity in a lab were right on the money.

Where did I make such a mistake? Come on, you're making the same claim that DaveTard made, and it's about time that someone support their statements. DaveTard won't, but I would expect something better from people here.

It would be "right on the money" had I denied that any relativistic effects have appeared in the lab. That you can't produce any place where I wrote that carelessly only goes to show that your defamatory comments are careless, at best.

This is the first post I made on UD:

Why yes, it is old news:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80214

I have mentioned observed relativistic effects on PT.

The question I asked was in response to this question, which I included in my post:

"Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species."

Then followed my question:

"Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab. ... So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab."

I am more than a little aware of the observations supporting relativity, but I was countering the old canard that if "macro-evolution" is science it must be shown 'in the lab.'

I finally had to register for this forum, simply because of the twisting of a reasonable question into one that DaveScot wants to portray as stupid.

DaveTard was trying to portray my rhetorical question as if I didn't know that the relativistic effects of gravity have been confirmed. So he brought up the GPS issue that I myself had previously brought up on PT. He started off misrepresenting me, and it is appalling that you would only continue the misrepresentation.

And I never claimed that relativistic effects of gravity have never been shown in the lab. The closest I came to that was in writing that relativistic effects of gravity rarely if ever appear in the lab. It was a careful statement, one that you should understand and deal with properly

As Dave points out, this was first done around 1959, with the detection of gravitational redshift in a lab at Harvard. Glen's attempts in the thread to get around this demonstration of what he was requesting were not at all convincing.

Why don't you back up any of your false charges? Can't? I thought not.

By having BOTH sides making simple errors, and then trying to make hay out of the errors of the other side while ignoring those from our "team" is, IMHO, counterproductive.

Find one place where I wrote that relativistic effects of gravity have never shown up in the lab. Btw, this is what makes defamation so insidious, some liar like DaveTard only has to make the accusation, and others believe it without their having any evidence for their falsities.

I didn't make the simple error that you accuse me of, and your error is not so simple or reasonable.

So anyway, I guess you're just another who piles on after an idiot has attacked. That's pretty bad.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 1:43 PM

#39

Glen started with a question which purpose and relevance wasn't exactly clear. GR effects are now possible to measure in clock rates between clocks separated a few decimeters in earths gravity field. Evolution effects are now possible to measure in bacteria in test tubes. I have some sympathy for the argument that GR effects are hard to show entirely in the lab. I also have some sympathy with the argument that evolution effects are hard to show entirely in the lab. I just think it is a hard argument to do.

The only reason I was discussing relativity and gravity is that Randy brought up gravity and claimed that it is not analogous to evolution (it's not a perfect analogy, but it is a reasonable one). The rhetorical question I asked was a quick rejoinder to the implication that macroevolution has to be shown in the lab in order to be science. A good number of gravitational effects are not able to be studied in the lab, hence the question. And yes, I asked for the relativistic effects of gravity to be shown, and did not at any time claim that none of these effects have been demonstrated in the lab.

The purpose of the question, and the reason for it, should be perfectly clear to anyone who read the remarks in context.

Where DaveScot really messes up when he ganders at Glen's website and declares him a whackjob, as if it has something to do with the arguments in the thread. I have respect for Glen and I think he says interesting things at times. (This wasn't one of them. :-)

It was a simple rejoinder. Only DaveTard could turn it into a grand mess.

The fact that he exposes a whacky and even crackpot side on his web is besides the point. I would jump on him as I do on Charlie if he tries to discuss his crackpot ideas. He doesn't, so I don't.

Well that amounts to defamation, even if you're trying to be nice. I also see that it is a bare charge, with nothing to back it up. Not surprising, since no one has been able to bring up any substantive objections to what I write on my website.

It is really stunning how readily people label. We are supposed to be dealing with evidence and interpretation on the science sites, and not simply taking cheap shots at considered remarks. It is easier to dismiss something novel than it is to understand such an idea in context.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 2:02 PM

#40

I'm going to link to my remarks in context, in the hope that people who might take DaveScot at his word might learn to judge properly:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/media_alert.html#comment-105809

And for those who won't read properly anyhow (perhaps there will be none of these), here are two of the relevant "exchanges", in order, but with another short "exchange" taken out from between.

I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab.

Really, you can resolve the problems of gravity? Please, don't hold back any more, your Nobel prize for resolving the problems between relativistic gravity and QM gravity awaits.

[Note, I brought up the "problems of gravity" because that is what the gravity/evolution analogy deals with, in part. I know, of course, that this is not to what Randy is referring, but I also know that, if he claims to be addressing the analogy, it is to what he should be referring. Also note that this provides context for the following "exchange"]

Where, precisely, has macro-evolution been done in a lab (in the sense that nature didn't 'fight back' when you were done meddling and revert to the original species).

Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab? Come on, you're the one who contrasts evolution to gravity and claims methodological superiority for the latter. So show us how the more difficult aspects of gravity have been studied in the lab. Oh, and it's about time that some superior scientist shows us evidence for gravitons, and I trust that you are the one to do it....

Note context, plurals used (aspects, effects), and the fact that DaveTard totally missed the fact that I wasn't denying in the least that the relativistic effects of gravity have been observed. That he pretended that I had made such a denial was his first offense and was the "basis" for first set of pig-ignorant remarks, something that "Sylas" is oblivious to in his post.

I'm the victim clear through, and even of some people on this thread.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 2:35 PM

#41

So... no degree? Anyone who cites an inflated IQ as their first intellectual credential has no common sense.

Is it better or worse than citing an engineering Ph.D.?

Posted by: Alon Levy | June 21, 2006 2:41 PM

#42

Glen,

When I first noticed this argument yesterday, I noticed a lot of goading and taunting going on from Dave's end. You showed the utmost in patience in dealing with Dave. Great job.

Even I recognized Dave's comments about gravity being the strongest force in nature as absurd. I tried to imagine such a universe, and I think it'd be a pretty darned boring one. The "Big Bang" could not have been more than a "Moderate Splut" if gravity was the strongest force in nature. For Dave to have built *everything he then said* on that one premise is just laughable.

And he's the one who said you were stupid, and digging a hole?

I can't wait for a "Bad Physics" website to get hold of this one. Somewhere out there, Phil Plait is laughing hard. Luckily, where I live isn't far from Sonoma State, so I can hear the laughter from here.

Posted by: MikeM | June 21, 2006 2:51 PM

#43

Strange how they don't understand the Fundemental Forces of Nature.
Here's a nice version of it from the fantastic Hyperphysics site by Carl Nave of Georgia State U.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Just so you know, I broke down a few years back and ordered the CD version of the site and will do so again with the updated version. This site is incredible and one of the best tools for education I've seen so far.

MYOB'
.

Posted by: MYOB | June 21, 2006 2:54 PM

#44

I honestly believe he's crazy. The worst part is his thinking that a 1480 SAT means he's got a high IQ and that trolling on the internet makes him educated. The SAT is a skill test and the results are highly dependent on your educational preparation. You go to the right finishing school, with the right prep, and even children with average intellects can score quite well.

As for the "College of the Internets..." Sorry, while you can learn things, the material it just not the same as college.

Posted by: Moses | June 21, 2006 3:05 PM

#45

Thanks, MikeM. It's rather difficult to deal with a misinterpretation that comes right out of the blue like that, with DaveTard's ignorance being the only actual problem even while he is the "moderator".

I only wrote, "Gravity is a weak force" (for my purposes it did not matter then that it is the weakest, though I mentioned that fact later). Cramer, the 'Tard's reference, wrote "Gravity is the weakest force." Davetard is the most malicious and dishonest person I've had to deal with on the evo boards.

He also wrote, "Gravitons aren't a relativistic effect of gravity," in response to my, "...I mentioned the graviton because I want quantum gravity effects to be demonstrated in the lab." He is a true idiot.

I think that's why he decided I couldn't post on UD any more, because it was another really stupid mistake on his part.

Michaels7 keeps claiming that his questions haven't been answered. I did answer him (but using my own arguments), however the A-hole at UD wouldn't post it. I'll take this opportunity to link anyone who's interested to a number of responses that I made to UD cretins, but wasn't able to post on UD:

http://tinyurl.com/k9g7t

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 3:12 PM

#46

Is DaveScot supposed to a physicist? Gosh, Keith, I...don't know. Maybe his specialty is pratfalls.

Arianism always made more sense to me that the three-gods-in-one sale.

Posted by: Kristine | June 21, 2006 4:13 PM

#47

PZ, can we now change the subtitle to this blog, "Evolution, development, and random biological (or cosmological) ejaculations from a godless liberal?" The physics guys (I am including myself) have hijacked the thread here and at UD. Maybe we should go a physics blog and play there.

Posted by: wheatdogg | June 21, 2006 4:45 PM

#48

Glen, I have been at this game for a long long time. I know Paul through our interactions in talk.origins. We are all on the same side even if if there are minor disagreements from time to time. I'm no longer active on Usenet, but I remain regular in answering feedback for the talkorigins website, and in various other forums. I see you are active on Usenet these days. Just for fun, try asking in the talk.origins newsgroup if anyone can remember me. I'm Chris Ho-Stuart.

The talkorigins website feedback columns will give you a good idea of my style of engagement. If I have a disagreement with you, it won't be because I am just following the line of the IDiots; and it won't be a position I take because of following a crowd.

I saw your comments relating to gravity and macroevolution. With respect, I don't think this was a good comparison, and I don't agree that they are as comparable as you have been suggesting, and I don't think your comments about being tested in a lab work very well at all.

I'll take no offense if people disagree.

None of this is a general endorsement of nutcases like DaveScot, or a case of questioning the validity of macroevolution as basic fact of the history of life established as solidly as anything ever gets in science.

(For the record, my position on the macroevolution/microevolution wars is that there is a genuine distinction to be made, and which has been made within the field of evolutionary biology by working scientists without reference to the crude distortions of IDiots or other creationists. I am informed in particular by the excellent macroevolution FAQ written by my friend John Wilkins.)

As for the exchange in Pandas Thumb; I've seen it. Exchange is the wrong word; Glen posts sixteen consecutive comments over the space of about 28 hours.

The question "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?" is easily answered: at Harvard, in 1959. This is a legitimate answer to the question, and this answer makes it a poor question in the whole line of argument.

It's not the answer DaveScot gave right away; he referred to GPS and Glen responded "Gee, he didn't tell us where relativistic effects of gravity have been shown in the lab. He did mention the observations that I am well aware of that have been done outside of the lab.". I can't judge what you do or do not know except by reading what you write, and this certainly comes across as suggesting that you had forgotten or were unaware of experiments on relativistic effects of gravity performed in the Harvard lab.

Qualifications about "more difficult aspects" are too vague to be useful; gravitational redshift is tiny and its detection was difficult. Later comments about showing the "full range of effects" read like shifting of goal posts.

More seriously, I think this whole line of argument misses the distinction between relativistic theory of gravity and the theory of macroevolution. (Theory meaning the body of principles that explain or model a phenomenon.) Gravity is, IMO, analogous to microevolution. We study it and observe it at work right now. The Harvard experiments are entirely in a lab; but more importantly they are processes we measure happening right here and now. I would also call the measurement of gravitational time dilation in atomic clocks carried on an airliner to be a lab experiment. Some folks might insist that you can't consider an airliner to be a lab; but the crucial point is that it is measurement of a phenomenon as it occurs; not an inference of past events from traces left in the field.

A better analogy for macroevolution would be the gravitational collapse of a dust and gas to form a star. We see the processes at work in the present (like we see microevolution at work in the present) but we don't have a good way to observe the whole process, except by traces it leaves behind.

I've already taken up more of Paul's blog than I should with this over long comment. My impression of the debate remains as originally stated. I don't like the manner in which the debate was conducted at Pandas Thumb. I think there has been a lot of special pleading going on, beyond all reason. I think the tendency of some people on the evolutionist side of things to represent everything in terms of teams is counter productive. It's quite possible to be critical of rhetoric from an evolutionist without being a creationist. I think the comparison of gravity and macroevolution was strained and poorly expressed at best, and the comments about labs conveyed a plain implications that relativistic effects of gravity cannot be seen in a lab -- which is wrong. All of this misses the point that macroevolution arises as the cumulative effects of microevolution over long periods of time; which means that it is primarily studied by the traces it leaves behind.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart (aka Sylas)

Posted by: Sylas | June 21, 2006 9:28 PM

#49

I saw your comments relating to gravity and macroevolution. With respect, I don't think this was a good comparison, and I don't agree that they are as comparable as you have been suggesting, and I don't think your comments about being tested in a lab work very well at all.

It would be better were you to note that I was only responding to Randy's attack on it. If you want to think that I somehow made the analogy out to be better than it was, I hardly care. What matters is that Randy's argument against it was lame. You have once again avoided dealing with the original issue in order to disagree with a secondary and relatively unimportant matter in the dispute.

As far as I can tell, you don't understand why I was making the response at issue.

For the record, my position on the macroevolution/microevolution wars is that there is a genuine distinction to be made, and which has been made within the field of evolutionary biology by working scientists without reference to the crude distortions of IDiots or other creationists.

Essentially I used the typical definition for "macroevolution" in responding to Michaels7, as I referred to speciation.

As for the exchange in Pandas Thumb; I've seen it. Exchange is the wrong word; Glen posts sixteen consecutive comments over the space of about 28 hours.

Deal with what I said, and the nature of the posts. A couple, or so, were placed on PT prior to their appearance on UD. Most, but not all, of the rest were responses that DaveTard would not post (I didn't try with the latter ones). OK, so you fault me for responding where I can. I haven't received better from you yet.

The question "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?" is easily answered: at Harvard, in 1959. This is a legitimate answer to the question, and this answer makes it a poor question in the whole line of argument.

No, why don't you understand the number and form used in my question? I used the plural deliberately, because I was referring to "the effects," and not simply one or several relativistic effect of gravity.

To ask, "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?" refers to at least a substantial portion of the effects, the meaning that is also borne out by the context. You simply ignore this, and take DaveTard's meaning over the real meaning. This is unconscionable, and a perpetuation of the violence done first by DaveTard. Though I pointed this out to you, the same false accusation ensues, without any indication that you thought about the actual words at all.

Your "answer" refers to one, or at best a very few, of "the relativistic effects of gravity", and does not respond to my rhetorical question according to the sense in which it was asked. Thus you, too, twist the meaning of what I wrote to attribute to me something for which you lack evidence. It is not a legitimate answer because I asked, "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?", and not, "where have one or several relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab." If you can't understand the difference, you have no business commenting.

"Gee, he didn't tell us where relativistic effects of gravity have been shown in the lab. He did mention the observations that I am well aware of that have been done outside of the lab.". I can't judge what you do or do not know except by reading what you write, and this certainly comes across as suggesting that you had forgotten or were unaware of experiments on relativistic effects of gravity performed in the Harvard lab.

I didn't know about them (I'm not a physicist), and I didn't care. Randy had said something to the effect that he could demonstrate gravity in the lab ("I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab.", so I asked, using the plural and implying a totality, "Where have the relativistic effects of gravity been shown in the lab?" You have once again ignored both context and sentence form. Again, you can find no place where I said that no relativistic effects have been shown in the lab, and in fact I was careful to allow that they may have been. As I wrote previously: "The closest I came to that was in writing that relativistic effects of gravity rarely if ever appear in the lab. It was a careful statement, one that you should understand and deal with properly."

You still do not deal properly with this.

Yes, I did sarcastically note that DaveTard had not given me any results that had been shown in the lab, but that was because he hadn't, and I was more than a little pissed at his unfair attack. You have no excuse to take a rejoinder that noted the utter lack of such experiments as if I had only asked for one or several. I was responding to his egregious attack, not actually reducing the quantity of results for what I had originally requested.

Of course it appears that my rejoinder is what you are judging by, without in the least understanding the context or form of the original question. Thus you misunderstand the very nature of the dispute, siding with the one who has been unfair, DaveTard.

You still haven't even bothered to fault DaveTard for his unfair implications in the original post. Hence I note that you are almost completely unjust in this matter, and not just in your lack of understanding of what I had asked (or what it was predicated upon, the expansive claims of Randy).

Qualifications about "more difficult aspects" are too vague to be useful;

They are too vague to tie anything down. My point in writing that, and in repeating it, is that I was not asking for a single experiment. Again your failure, or unconcern, to deal forthrightly with the context.

gravitational redshift is tiny and its detection was difficult. Later comments about showing the "full range of effects" read like shifting of goal posts.

Except that I was responding in context to Randy's "I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab." Why would I ask only for one experiment "in the lab", when Randy suggested that the whole gamut of gravity's effects could be reproduced there?

Again, you either can't, or don't care to, understand the context and meaning, preferring your cheap shots to actually going back to the source. I both linked the context and repeated some of it here, and you still fail to recognize that I was responding to expansive claims, not asking the limited a-contextual question that you accept as constituting the entirety of the "exchange".

I don't like the manner in which the debate was conducted at Pandas Thumb.

Who cares? You weren't there, and you don't understand the context. You simply accuse without understanding, as well.

I think there has been a lot of special pleading going on, beyond all reason.

You have failed utterly to support your claims regarding that. Deal with Randy's claims honestly, and perhaps for once you'll understand the question. So far, you have taken DaveTard's mischaracterization as if it were correct, and that is extremely unfair.

I think the tendency of some people on the evolutionist side of things to represent everything in terms of teams is counter productive. It's quite possible to be critical of rhetoric from an evolutionist without being a creationist.

Once again you say that completely out of context. Randy accused us, using very faulty PRATTs. Instead of honestly understanding the responses, you simply accuse, sans evidence and all propriety.

I think the comparison of gravity and macroevolution was strained and poorly expressed at best, and the comments about labs conveyed a plain implications that relativistic effects of gravity cannot be seen in a lab -- which is wrong.

It wasn't my analogy, and you totally fail to deal with the reason for the response given.

And you again make the false charge of "plain implications that relativistic effects cannot be seen in the lab." You don't deal with number, the implication that "the relativistic effects" implies, or the plain fact of the context, which was Randy's statement, ""I can produce the equations for gravity, run the numbers, and then easily reproduce the calculated behavior in a lab." I would not be responding to anything else, and it is entirely unfair for you to suggest that I was asking something unrelated to Randy's various statements regarding gravity.

Again, you fail completely to address context, instead faulting me according to the same out-of-context nonsense that DaveTard used.

All of this misses the point that macroevolution arises as the cumulative effects of microevolution over long periods of time; which means that it is primarily studied by the traces it leaves behind

No, you miss the point that the rhetorical question was in response to a host of unfair charges.

And you have once again failed to deal with context, thus adding false charges to previous injury.

I am guessing that if you respond again you will fail to deal with context. You haven't even begun to deal with the context that I provided, but have simply libeled me once more in your complete lack of understanding of the issues.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 10:40 PM

#50

I would not be responding to anything else,

Well, ok, I was responding to something else as well, but essentially all of Randy's gravity statements would be taken as a whole claim.

I only add this because "Sylas" attacks without understanding the obvious, hence I should be careful about a slight lapse that he can exploit.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 21, 2006 10:46 PM

#51

I did an analysis of DaveScot's contention, and you may want to read it here.

He was both right and wrong. Mostly wrong.

Posted by: sdanielmorgan | June 22, 2006 1:32 PM

#52

He was wholly wrong to "correct" this statement:

Gravity is a weak force, which is why most of the observations must occur outside of the laboratory. Neutron stars, massive galaxies, and galaxy clusters are the objects through which many of the relativistic effects of gravity may be observed.

Which is not surprising, since the whole premise of his attack was wrong:

Good lord, Glen. Relativistic effects of velocity and gravity have not only been demonstrated they are used in applied science. The Global Positioning System requires clocks so accurate and synchronized that differences in velocity and local gravity amongst orbital and ground based clocks must be compensated for in order to achieve desired accuracy. Doesn't everyone know this? It's really old news, Glen. Anyone claiming any broad based knowledge of science should not have asked the question you did. What's your background again, Glen?

My response:

Why yes, it is old news:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80198

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/02/nobel_laureate.html#comment-80214

He attacked using the same evidence that I had mentioned elsewhere on PT. He didn't understand the question or the context of the question, and simply twisted it for his lying purposes.

The rest of the thread also demonstrates his ignorance and dishonesty. He is lying scum.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 22, 2006 1:55 PM

#53

DaveScot smacked me down. I feel so, so, unperturbed. He wanted to know MY background and creds, and then replied: High school physics. That explains the defense of the strength of gravity with the depth found in a high school physics text. -ds

Harrumph. I know just a little more than the usual HS text, but whatever. Was that an ad hominem attack?

Also, what you all make of his contention that the genetic code is digital? His argument does not convince me, but after all I'm just a little high school physics teacher, so what do I know?

Why did I bother commenting there? I try to be reasonable and all, ask legit questions, and DS just impugns my intelligence and blows me off.

Humbug.

Posted by: wheatdogg | June 22, 2006 8:53 PM

#54

I haven't even read the discussion at UD, and thus I don't really know the context that certain statements of yours, Glen D, were said in, so I won't sit here and try to defend anything that Sylas has said, and I'll acknowladge it could very well be that Sylas is wrong... but as I've read much of what has been written by Sylas, and knowing what a nice, intelligent and reasonable person he is (as evidenced by his talk.origins contributions and posts at other blogs and forums), I feel compelled to point this out: however wrong Sylas is now (assuming, of course, that he is in fact wrong), know that it's not because of dishonesty, stupidity or unconcern for the truth, as bits of your responses to him seem to suggest may be the case, but most likely for some other legitamite reason(s).

I apologize for not really adding anything of substance to this blog entry, but I just wanted to get this out there. I'd hate for anyone to think that Sylas is even remotely like those dishonest buffoons Dembski and Dave.

Posted by: The Moonshield | June 22, 2006 11:29 PM

#55

Okay, Moonshield, I'll take your word for it, tentatively of course.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by: Glen Davidson

Pharyngula

Search

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Please go laugh at UncommonDescent

TrackBacks

Comments