Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - rotating planet

Pages: [1] 2
1
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: March 13, 2013, 09:36:21 PM »
One can be Nigh Omnipotent, but not Omnipotent.

If none can be Omnipotent, what is Nigh Omnipotence?

Concepts can exist outside reality.... I'm trying my best here to sound cool and be correct at the same time.

What I am saying is that if none can be Omnipotent, how can we know what Nigh Omnipotence even is? We do not know what Omnipotence is.

The definition of omnipotence is to know everything there is to know.

I am merely saying "nigh" omnipotence is arbitrary and cannot be measured if nothing is omnipotent.

Okay.

Do you mean Okay? or O.K.

2
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: March 13, 2013, 03:52:40 PM »
One can be Nigh Omnipotent, but not Omnipotent.

If none can be Omnipotent, what is Nigh Omnipotence?

Concepts can exist outside reality.... I'm trying my best here to sound cool and be correct at the same time.

What I am saying is that if none can be Omnipotent, how can we know what Nigh Omnipotence even is? We do not know what Omnipotence is.

The definition of omnipotence is to know everything there is to know.

I am merely saying "nigh" omnipotence is arbitrary and cannot be measured if nothing is omnipotent.

3
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: March 12, 2013, 06:25:29 PM »
One can be Nigh Omnipotent, but not Omnipotent.

If none can be Omnipotent, what is Nigh Omnipotence?

Concepts can exist outside reality.... I'm trying my best here to sound cool and be correct at the same time.

What I am saying is that if none can be Omnipotent, how can we know what Nigh Omnipotence even is? We do not know what Omnipotence is.

4
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Is the Truth Knowable?
« on: March 11, 2013, 05:54:31 PM »
One can be Nigh Omnipotent, but not Omnipotent.

If none can be Omnipotent, what is Nigh Omnipotence?

5
The Lounge / Re: Conspiracy Theories you Believe in
« on: January 14, 2013, 04:29:53 PM »
9/11

What about? there are many 9/11 conspiracies

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist
« on: January 13, 2013, 07:40:56 PM »
Stop it with the friction - that's the other thread. This is quite easy to explain. The temperature of a material is determined by the velocity of its constituent molecules. The products of uranium fission are lighter than uranium, mass has been lost, this lost mass goes into making the constituents go faster. As E=mc^2 a little mass makes a lot of energy.
Lets look at a Nuclear bomb.

 A Uranium projectile, or bullet is supposed to smash into a set of Uranium rings or discs at the other end of the bomb right?

For this to happen, it has to have powder charges explode behind the projectile to force it, at speed into the rings/discs and as soon as that happens, it creates a mammoth city destroying Nuclear explosion.

I have three massive problems with this.

1. When the powder charge ignites, how come it doesn't blow the bomb casing apart before the projectile hits the rings/discs.

2. Assuming the projectile does hit the rings/discs, why would it fission immediate into this super city busting mushroom cloud.

3. If Neutrons smash into atoms, then once the bomb has exploded, how do the Neutrons keep smashing into the atoms when it will be scattered into the air in quick time, meaning that it would be like a base ball batter trying to hit balls by running about in all directions with them raining all over the place, if you get my drift.

It's all magical stuff and very easy to brainwash folk into believing it all, yet it's far to far fetched for me to even contemplate.

Firstly, the nuclear bomb you are talking about is only a type of nuclear bomb, the gun-type nuclear bomb (for example "little boy", the bomb that was dropped on hiroshima). There are other types nuclear bombs such as fat man, an implosion-type nuclear bomb. Anyways here are answers to the questions.

1. As squevil said, same as with a bullet. Just because an explosion sends one thing flying does not mean all will be destroyed by that explosion

2. Well it is not immediate, however it happens really fast because of the massive amounts of energy involved. The neutrons have much energy from the fission they originated from and were "shot" from and so are moving very fast. As they are moving so fast, the next reactions will happen soon (as the distance traveled isn't a large amount) and they will multiply in number of reactions extremely quickly (as the uranium atoms are close enough together to have enough free neutrons whizzing about and actually hitting into other atoms to keep a sustained reaction. See critical mass).

3. Firstly, the neutrons will be moving as fast if not faster than the uranium atoms (as they are much less massive but are recieving roughly the same amount of energy) and the explosion is kind of like a build up and then an explosion. The reason the uranium is moving in the first place (though much of the moving things will probably be the end elements such as barium and krypton) is because of the free neutrons hitting the other uranium.


As Arthur C. Clarke said, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Your Ideal Society
« on: January 12, 2013, 08:05:00 PM »
The smurfs

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: January 08, 2013, 09:07:29 AM »


Quote
I agree that things that things that are falsifiable are generally considered science, however many scientific theories aren't practically falsifiable. For example multiverse theory is considered by many to be scientific or a scientific theory, however is it really possible to falsify it?
A theory is something that has evidence to back it up, if it has evidence, it is there for testable, it is falsifiable.
What I meant was it can be theoretically testable and falsifiable, but those theories aren't necessarily testable in reality. Also, a theory may require evidence to back it up, however without evidence it still can be a theory.

Quote
A theistic God would have to be theoretically falsifiable as it acts upon the world its actions must be detectable and so it would be special pleading to dismiss the theory of a theistic God while not dismissing "scientific" theories which aren't practically falsifiable.

You're assuming god exists and acts on the world, the problem is, god's existence hasn't been demonstrated yet. It's like me saying pixies or fairies act on the world, even though their very existence hasn't been demonstrated yet. There's no point in adding them into the equation. "A does not prove B without first A being proved" Also how do you know he exists and acts on the world? Where's the evidence? Many theists claim god is not material, cannot be detected, and so is unfalsifiable.
Things that can be tested will always be greater and much preferred than anything that can't.

Also one other point, even if science got everything wrong, religion still cannot be considered, because it's largely unfalsifiable. Religion can never be the greater explanation.
I am not vouching for God's existence, it is just that a theistic God by definition affects the world. If God acts upon the world (and so is theistic) there will be some type of evidence for it. I am not saying there is, I am just saying that a theistic God, if real, would have evidence. Of course, it is not necessary that we have located any of that evidence. If theistic people claim that God and God's actions aren't detectable in anyway they are contradicting their theism.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Pascal's Wager
« on: January 07, 2013, 05:18:51 PM »

Did you misunderstand my post? You're using Occam's Razor to compare two possibilities, the possibility that God exists and the possibility that the universe exists solely as science explains it. You therefore have to actually compare the two. That's all I was saying. I'm an atheist myself, I'm not arguing with you.

We're failing to understand each other. We're talking about the god claim, but if you want to compare it to answers given about how it all came to be with science, the god claim still fails. If there is no evidence, if it isn't falsifiable, it must and will be dismissed every single time.
The only time a more complex explanation is preferable is when there is evidence to support it. We can observe, the universe, we can find out how it came to be, but from the mouths of many theists, god cannot be detected, the claim is unfalsifiable. And so it's quickly rejected.

Things that can be tested will always out weigh those that can't.

I agree that things that things that are falsifiable are generally considered science, however many scientific theories aren't practically falsifiable. For example multiverse theory is considered by many to be scientific or a scientific theory, however is it really possible to falsify it? A theistic God would have to be theoretically falsifiable as it acts upon the world its actions must be detectable and so it would be special pleading to dismiss the theory of a theistic God while not dismissing "scientific" theories which aren't practically falsifiable.

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Things that baffle atheists
« on: December 13, 2012, 08:44:46 PM »
Never heard of a superstitious fellow ever regard his dead relatives as gods. That would be interesting.

Relatives of a Roman emperor would.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Things that baffle atheists
« on: December 11, 2012, 07:43:06 PM »
If anything, agnosticism is the only way you can fail to have a religious belief. Of course, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice and all that.

Isn't it apatheism the only way to lack a religious belief as agnosticism still is a belief, only that there is no way to know whether a deity or deities exist?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: What Earth model should be taught in schools?
« on: December 06, 2012, 05:24:29 PM »
They should teach no model, however this would probably be very difficult to become a reality.

13
I'm not going to sign the petition, because I'm not a jackass.


Also, the U.S. is one of the only countries with true free speech. It is, for example, illegal in most European countries to deny the holocaust. There are other examples in other parts of the world but I can't be bothered to look them up.
It's not TRUE free speech really because there are some things that you could say which might be dangerous legally.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 24, 2012, 10:18:01 PM »
I meant for a non-religious answer as I believe not all FErs are religious.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 08:08:52 PM »
I can't be sure, but I believe the others exist
It is true that there is no complete proof for the universe, however there still can be a point in asking for others' reasonings, because i believe that there is a universe
What is the point in asking, when you aren't even sure if the people you are asking exist? I have no time for this beard stroking hippy drug nonsense. The earth is flat. Good day.
Can you make sure that others exist?

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: October 21, 2012, 03:54:48 PM »
Just because we don't have the technological capability to falsify theories doesn't mean they aren't falsifiable. For example we can't really falsify the big bang, however theoretically if we had a time machine we could go back in time and see if the universe were created in a big bang. Is it a theory?

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: October 21, 2012, 03:50:09 PM »
Conservation of energy can be kept with an expanding universe if groundstate energy of the universe is 0
Energy is equal to mass (E=MC^2) so it works for mass as well

Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.  So we need something that can make the impossible happen.  God is the only thing that can make the impossible happen.
In quantum theory matter-antimatter pairs are created from nothing all the time.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 02:56:59 PM »
It is true that there is no complete proof for the universe, however there still can be a point in asking for others' reasonings, because i believe that there is a universe

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 02:22:47 PM »
No I believe there is a universe, however that is a belief and there isn't a way to prove it 100%. That is why I said it is speculation

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 01:55:19 PM »
The whole universe is speculation yet i suppose they believe in it?

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 12:33:37 PM »
Sure just as unproveable just like all science.
All maths and physics break down as you near the point of creation.
That is why they are approximations and incomplete theories.

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 12:19:47 PM »
There are approximations toward the creation of the universe in round earth theory. I havent heard of any for flat earth.

23
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: October 21, 2012, 12:12:31 PM »
I don't mean to say that the universe has been forever in a linear sense of time, time was created with the universe. This is speaking from a linear point of view. As time is a part of the universe, linearly the universe might seem to have a beginning, causing need for a creator, however the universe self doesnt have to be created in the same way.
This is just gibberish. At some point the universe was kicked into motion. The stuff of matter was created, time began and a universe appeared.
Yes if you would have read what I said, you would have noticed, indeed the universe has a definite "beginning" in the past. This however doesn't need to be the actual beginning as time can be a part of the universe.

Yes if the beginning of the universe was indeed a black hole, the laws of science do fall apart. However, the beginning of the universe could be a point, but not a singularity.
Says who? I mean this is just mindless speculation now. Why is it you will hunt and hunt to find an excuse for atheism at all costs, even when it doesn't really make any sense? Why is "the universe was created" such a difficult concept? Do you view people who believe in God as weak-minded or stupid? Why will you accept absolutely any other solution or even make up your own ones that make no sense, but never dream to concede that something complicated may have been designed?
Says who about what? That the laws of science break down at the black hole or that the beginning of the universe doesn't have to be a singularity whilst still being a point (Stephen Hawking - A briefer history of time). Well the universe is speculation. We cannot KNOW whether it even exists. So does God really make sense? I thought you were also arguing that God isn't understandable (i.e. can't make sense). I do believe the universe was created, however it can be self-creating. No i don't believe that people who believe in God are weak-minded or stupid. How does this even matter? Even if I did that doesn't make my points any more invalid.

An example of something being a point but not a singularity is a theoretical mathematical perfect sphere. the top and the bottom are points, however they are not singular. in the same sense the beginning and end of the universe are points, but not singularities, and so do not pose the problem.
Now tell me how this translates from theoretical mathematics into applied mathematics? Because the universe doesn't have any theoretical mathematics in it. That's just what we use when we can't describe the applied maths properly.
When you make a comparison like the number of points in a circle, you invoke infinity. Infinity does not exist. Absolutely nothing in the universe is infinite, from the number of atoms to the time elapsed, to the amount of energy. Everything has a finite number, even if that number is very large. Only man-made mathematics has infinity when we have no idea how large a number should be and can't imagine it.
Once you invoke infinity you are calling on the supernatural, magic; powers and numbers outside of our universe. Infinity is a scientists way of saying 'God'.
The reason i used theoretical mathematical was because true spheres don't exist. Why should God be any different and be infinity yet real? That is just special pleading.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The creation of the universe
« on: October 21, 2012, 11:16:32 AM »
I understand however that did not answer my question. I guess m yquestion could be rephrased to how could the universe be created in such a way that things will end up the way they are now.

25
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: October 20, 2012, 11:17:22 PM »
Conservation of energy can be kept with an expanding universe if groundstate energy of the universe is 0
Energy is equal to mass (E=MC^2) so it works for mass as well

26
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why do you believe in God?
« on: October 20, 2012, 09:07:04 PM »
And the biggest question, where does all the stuff of the universe come from? From nothing, everything. A creator solves this problem. A strictly scientific universe falls over with gravity, time, space, pressure, temperature, conservation of energy etc etc at t=0.
At the point of creation, nothing makes sense. It doesn't appear to be a natural phenomenon. Its as if it required intervention, a spark, something to get it all working. A creator perhaps?

The universe can come from nothing in the sense that nothing created it. The universe could have just BEEN, unchanged by things outside it. I don't mean to say that the universe has been forever in a linear sense of time, time was created with the universe. This is speaking from a linear point of view. As time is a part of the universe, linearly the universe might seem to have a beginning, causing need for a creator, however the universe self doesnt have to be created in the same way.
Yes if the beginning of the universe was indeed a black hole, the laws of science do fall apart. However, the beginning of the universe could be a point, but not a singularity. An example of something being a point but not a singularity is a theoretical mathematical perfect sphere. the top and the bottom are points, however they are not singular. in the same sense the beginning and end of the universe are points, but not singularities, and so do not pose the problem.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / The creation of the universe
« on: October 20, 2012, 08:34:03 PM »
How could the universe have been created in way that makes the world flat and the celestial boldies "hang" above us?
If the earth and the celestial bodies are suspended with UA, how are the sun and moon circling the earth the way they are? What type of origin of the Universe would make for it to do so?
Was the UA supposed to be there before the creation or is it a part of the creation?

28
Flat Earth General / Re: Dark Energy
« on: May 14, 2011, 10:07:13 AM »
Where does the DE come from?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: How were people tricked.
« on: March 05, 2011, 06:35:13 PM »
than why was Copernicus persecuted?

30
Flat Earth General / Re: How were people tricked.
« on: March 05, 2011, 06:25:45 PM »
I read that the church believed in a flat earth? ???

Pages: [1] 2