Page 10 of 11
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:40 am
by Hjarloprillar
Hex
Quote Hex
"Hjarloprillar doesn't refude that I'm accuseing him of babbeling of Intelligent Design, but he actually confirms it, thus you are wrong, utterly wrong ..as usual."
so why, is there gravity?
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 6:46 am
by HexHammer
Hjarloprillar wrote:Hex
Quote Hex
"Hjarloprillar doesn't refude that I'm accuseing him of babbeling of Intelligent Design, but he actually confirms it, thus you are wrong, utterly wrong ..as usual."
so why, is there gravity?
How is gravity relevant for me saying that you are talking about ID?
You put random things into a discussion, that's usually a definition of insanity.
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:11 am
by Hjarloprillar
HexHammer wrote:Hjarloprillar wrote:Hex
Quote Hex
"Hjarloprillar doesn't refude that I'm accuseing him of babbeling of Intelligent Design, but he actually confirms it, thus you are wrong, utterly wrong ..as usual."
so why, is there gravity?
How is gravity relevant for me saying that you are talking about ID?
You put random things into a discussion, that's usually a definition of insanity.
Gravity is not relevant to intelligent design? it just IS?
Wow
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 7:20 am
by HexHammer
Hjarloprillar wrote:HexHammer wrote:Hjarloprillar wrote:Hex
Quote Hex
"Hjarloprillar doesn't refude that I'm accuseing him of babbeling of Intelligent Design, but he actually confirms it, thus you are wrong, utterly wrong ..as usual."
so why, is there gravity?
How is gravity relevant for me saying that you are talking about ID?
You put random things into a discussion, that's usually a definition of insanity.
Gravity is not relevant to intelligent design? it just IS?
Wow
That wasn't the question, read closely!
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:01 am
by Hjarloprillar
Quote Hex
"Hjarloprillar doesn't refude that I'm accuseing him of babbeling of Intelligent Design, but he actually confirms it, thus you are wrong, utterly wrong ..as usual."
so why, is there gravity?[/quote]How is gravity relevant for me saying that you are talking about ID?
You put random things into a discussion, that's usually a definition of insanity.
Gravity is not relevant to intelligent design? it just IS?
Wow[/quote]That wasn't the question, read closely!
No.
Im not going to read closely the words of one who calls me a babbling idiot.
You lack of etiquette bites you in ass.
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 9:19 am
by HexHammer
Hjarloprillar wrote:No.
Im not going to read closely the words of one who calls me a babbling idiot.
You lack of etiquette bites you in ass.
To say that you can't answer accordingly and makes irrelvant sidetracking isn't lacking etiquette, maybe calling you a babbeling person, but that's just stating the obvious.
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:25 am
by Hjarloprillar
HexHammer wrote:Hjarloprillar wrote:No.
Im not going to read closely the words of one who calls me a babbling idiot.
You lack of etiquette bites you in ass.
To say that you can't answer accordingly and makes irrelvant sidetracking isn't lacking etiquette, maybe calling you a babbeling person, but that's just stating the obvious.
Im sorry but your 1/2 hour is up. if you wish to argue you will have to pay.
Re: Time
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:25 pm
by Hjarloprillar
A hypothetical.
Build a 10 meter tube that fires once and pulses a picosecond light pulse down tube to mirror and back. 1 and bounces it back up tube , repeatingng endleslesly 2 3 4 5 it hit s millions in seconds. and continues that way and cannot be stopped unless you trash the tube.
put one on earth and one in New fusion powered starship "the Admiral Kuznetzov" [a "poke in eye to america"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkmQdHUDwSI]
Fire the ship up and let it fly.
after X amount of time it gets to 99.9% C and on board. the tube is still running.
On board Light still moves at its Velocity of 299792458 m/s.
The Kuznetzov then swings about and goes home. .
decelerates and when it arrives.. the 2 tubes show a different pulse count. [Those on board experienced a year, those on earth 10 years.] even though light has only one velocity.
Now this brings up so many questions that the brain hurts. a lot.
'it just dont add up' as the dog said.
However it does answer one question.
Those idiots that say the universe is a product of random chance really have no idea how complex the fundamentals that make up reality are.
And that random chance in regard to laws that govern it [the universe] cannot simply bring into being
,, such a mind boggling complex system. through 'random chance'.
THEY ARE WRONG
Design. Evolution.
Shhhhh be very qwiet, im hunting wabbits
Prill
_________________
A repo of op
Re: Time
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:45 am
by Arising_uk
Hjarloprillar wrote:...
However it does answer one question.
Those idiots that say the universe is a product of random chance really have no idea how complex the fundamentals that make up reality are.
And that random chance in regard to laws that govern it [the universe] cannot simply bring into being
,, such a mind boggling complex system. through 'random chance'.
THEY ARE WRONG
Design. Evolution.
...
Complexity gives no support for a designer and as soon as you have one you'd have to say 'Who designed 'it'?', a more complex design?
I doubt anyone in science says random chance, just that all the complexity seems to have come from very simple beginnings and from what I understand they are trying to square the circle and show how the seeds are self-contained.
Re: Time
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:57 pm
by Hjarloprillar
Arising_uk wrote: just that all the complexity seems to have come from very simple beginnings.
Foghorn
Yet this universe STARTED with the complexity and the laws that support that complexity.
I like to quote Constantine when she mentions " gods plan"
he replies
" There is no plan. god is a kid with an ant farm"
[i have used " spare me the remedial incantations" in conversation.. great line.]
Prill
Re: Time
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:33 pm
by Blaggard
http://www.theonion.com/articles/evange ... -int,1778/
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Rev. Gabriel Burdett explains Intelligent Falling.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.
Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.
"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."
Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.
"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."
"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.
"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."
LMAO.
Incidentally Einsteins theory of general relativity explains why gravity unlike electromagnetism is only attractive.
It's because God loves it when a plan comes together.
Actually it's because it is a residual from the other forces hence space-time, hence curvature there in and hence time dilation effects space and time are the fabric upon which the universe is made and if it bends then time has to bend to, since they are intricately linked but meh, semantics.
There is no anti gravity just as there is no anti energy, energy is never 0 nor can it be negative, gravity is energy and mass and energy is affected by mass.
e=mc^2
energy = mass times the speed of light squared.
mass is measured in electron volts or mass = eV/c^2 = 1.6×10^−19 Joules which is the amount of energy required to move and electron with a force known as volts.
h bar or ħ/ev = 6.582119×10−16 s which is the SI unit of time in relation to energy measured in seconds in relation to the speed of light in a vacuum.
h bar is the reduced Plancks constant and is used as a base line for angular momentum and hence energy, and relates to e=hf which is energy is equal to Plancks constant multiplied by frequency which is why:
lambda(λ)=wavelength
hjarlopillar wrote:
Yet this universe STARTED with the complexity and the laws that support that complexity.
Yeah so what, anthropic principle anyone?
In an infinite universe of universes or an eternity the probability of laws which promote life = 1:1
Paul Davies's book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) reviews the current state of the fine tuning debate in detail, and concludes by enumerating the following responses to that debate:
- The absurd universe: Our universe just happens to be the way it is.
- The unique universe: There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the Universe being the way it is. Some Theory of Everything will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
- The multiverse: Multiple universes exist, having all possible combinations of characteristics, and we inevitably find ourselves within a universe that allows us to exist.
- Intelligent Design: A creator designed the Universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence.
- The life principle: There is an underlying principle that constrains the Universe to evolve towards life and mind.
- The self-explaining universe: A closed explanatory or causal loop: "perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist." This is Wheeler's Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).
- The fake universe :We live inside a virtual reality simulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
Re: Time
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:14 pm
by Hjarloprillar
Anthropic principle
In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle (from Greek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it. Some proponents of the anthropic principle reason that it explains why the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. As a result, they believe it is unremarkable that the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life.
'unremarkable'
wow
Paul Davies nowhere mentions that this verse may be part of a metaverse.
As we as humanity have ZERO knowledge of what existed before bang. We ignore it or say there is no such thing. I, do not.
I believe that the universe has nothing to do with humanity, sap and wap or whatever.
We Again make ourselves the center.
When in fact we are nothing but transient biologicals on a small world orbiting one of 500 billon billion stars
How this magnificent edifice came to be and where it came from is the biggest question we know and know nothing of.
Prill
Re: Time
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:39 am
by Blaggard
I quite agree no one knows, everyone seems to have some idea, but at the end of the day it is not only an unsolved mystery, but even the Mystery Machine populated by Scooby and Shaggy could not figure it out. It's not the janitor, it's not the guy who runs the slide show, and I am pretty sure Daphne will show it's not magic at some point: who is it and why is it and what for, is the most perfectly still philosophical question. That said though I don't think mindless arm waving or gesticulation in the name of is going to really propose any sort of sense on the senseless issue from 1 million years BC.
Re: Time
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:48 am
by Arising_uk
Hjarloprillar wrote:
Foghorn
Yet this universe STARTED with the complexity and the laws that support that complexity.
Not really, it started apparently with very little complexity and the 'laws' are just inductive inference so not immutable. Even at the high-level you can explain all the interactions of light and matter with two entities, three axioms and a shitload of Maths.
I like to quote Constantine when she mentions " gods plan"
he replies
" There is no plan. god is a kid with an ant farm"
...
Prill
This assumes a 'God'?
Re: Time
Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:20 am
by Hjarloprillar
Arising_uk wrote:Hjarloprillar wrote:
Foghorn
Yet this universe STARTED with the complexity and the laws that support that complexity.
Not really, it started apparently with very little complexity and the 'laws' are just inductive inference so not immutable. Even at the high-level you can explain all the interactions of light and matter with two entities, three axioms and a shitload of Maths.
I like to quote Constantine when she mentions " gods plan"
he replies
" There is no plan. god is a kid with an ant farm"
...
Prill
This assumes a 'God'?
Foghorn
Yes it does, a very catholic one. The irreverence is magic.
Also when Constantine fights Balthazar.
"spare me the remedial incantations" is a great line. I have used it on holy people..they get upset... [go figure
]
Your obvious contempt for god of religion is shared by me. It is worth every vitriolic put down.
I keep an open mind on 'design' because complexity and balance of laws of this verse hint to me of evolving from successful verses that lead to this one.
--survival of the fittest--
And so from now i will not comment on any statements by you regarding 'god' cause while we may be a page apart . We or in same chapter.
BTW
Grab me a pint own way back from dunny me old mate,,,lol