Leaderboard

Do you understand that scientists also observe nature and explain it without invoking a God. And do you also understand that nature is entirely consistent with there being no God? And do you therefore understand that nature is not evidence for God. It's like saying that it is theoretically possible that someone deliberately planted weeds in my garden. The weeds are there. So the phantom weed planter must exist!. The presence of weeds is consistent with His existence, but it's certainly not proof of it and, given that there are other more plausible explanations, it hardly counts as evidence for it. So, while nature is tangible, it's not evidence.

could have PMed you but I thought it would be better public... I apologize for my comments John. I have gotten along with other blunt people who speak their mind, such as Ophiolite and Dr Rocket, and I assure you, I respect your opinions as much as I did theirs. Its not much of an excuse, but you caught me on a bad day and I took it out on you. Incidentally ( to get back on topic ), enthusiasts do all sorts of things with negligible ( or even non-existent ) returns. That is the very definition of enthusiast. Do you think people collect stuff for its monetary value ? Do you think people can tell the difference between a transistor Amp and a tube Amp, or $1000 speakers and $15000 speakers ? So while you may argue that the difference between air and Nitrogen is negligible, to an enthusiast, it isn't

It is possible to formally define, and prove, the properties of numbers, and the operations on them, starting from a few basic examples. One of the first examples was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

Folks would be less inclined to perceive you as a self-important blowhard... aka aged annoying airhead... if you’d at least put a modicum if effot toward refraining from such passive aggressive unnecessary barbs like this (just one example among a countless many others you seem to seed into every post you make). /nickels worth of free advice

You seem to have solved the nuclear waste problem by personal decree. Or, maybe, you are mistaken.

This could actually be an interesting topic. The concept of gods has been developed by many (all?) cultures. I wonder how many of these were independent origins - is it something any isolated human society will develop or is it just a contagious idea? Also true monotheism seems only to have occured once in the world but has spread to become the dominant belief system. From what little i know of Jewish history their culture, centred around a monotheistic mythology, was paramount in surviving disasters, diasporas, slavery and wars. The late Romans seemed to take on this idea of identity through a central god to unite their empire. The Sassanid empire tried a similar thing with Zoroastrianism but failed - much because Islam burst out of Arabia. So was there really something in this idea of monotheism that could unite people that other belief systems lack? Maybe having a king above kings is familiar enough to comfort people. But the Chinese and Japanese certainly don't lack cultural identity throughout their history, but do lack a singular god - the Chinese actually moved away from monotheism even as Europe moved towards it. And so on... Through historians and archeology (and possibly observing other developed social animals?) we might even be able to have a reasonable go at answering some of these questions. Got to me more interesting than the normal 'God exists, no it doesn't' discussions.

Any gas other than plain old air in your automobile tires would officially slide into the dread and uselessly expensive category known as overkill. Helium would have zero advantageous effect over air. What is far more important than the type of air that's in our tires is how MUCH sir in in them! That is...correct air pressure. This drastically effects the true physics of your car's handling, safety, and of course gas mileage.

We already know this to be true. So you need to go one step further and calculate the size of the effect and show that matches what we observe. The numbers are important, whether you like it or not. You can't say "any difference" will confirm your hypothesis. What if the difference is +100, does that confirm your hypothesis? What if the difference is -20, does that also confirm your hypothesis? What if no difference is seen; does that show you are wrong, or just that the measurements are not accurate enough. You should be able to apply your hypothesis to predict what we see, when observing from Earth. So, if I understand your hypothesis correctly, you are saying that the gravity of Earth (or the solar system? or the galaxy?) will produce the red-shifts we describe as Hubble's Law, is that correct? The trouble is, the values predicted by this hypothesis will be: 1. Too small (it probably won't even be detectable) 2. In the wrong direction (blue rather than red shift) 3. Independent of distance (so it can't account for Hubble's law) Now, feel free to do the calculations yourself and show me that I am wrong. But this is why you (and anyone with a hypothesis) need to quantify the predictions.

Expand on this. Avoid the Big Bang. Yes I believe it is accepted science that Time is a perpendicular dimension to our three space dimensions, and No, Time cannot have a velocity. Velocity is a distance divided by time. The "velocity of time" should correspond to another definition.

Good point. And, to give credit where it is due, you already answered the question If you had bulk water (as liquid or solid) in your tyres you would be treating those tyres badly. But the effect of changes of vapour pressure would be small compared t the effects of thermal expansion. A stably running heat engine doesn't have a temperature. It has at least two- you can use them to calculate the theoretical thermodynamic efficiency. On a related, and probably a more interesting, note (it's not difficult). Are there any native French speakers reading this? I seem to recall hearing that the translators struggle to translate the common English phrase "room temperature" into French because there's no simple equivalent. Is that true?

I could quote the generally held definition of what is gravity and how it is defined in Newton's and Einstein's universe....or show many videos explaining gravity as the attraction between masses or as exhibiting itself in the curvature/warping of spacetime. But I sense you want something deeper then that. Let me supply my favourite video by one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century which I believe may answer what you are after....It's only 7.5 minutes long.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

More specifically, that the wave slows down, uniformly, vs photons absorbed and re-emitted. These dictate the speed of the wave (inverse of the square root of the product). If you use the vacuum values, you get c. The speed of other waves depend on properties of the medium, in a similar fashion. No, it's not directly connected to relativity. The wave explanation existed before relativity, and the photon explanation is QM.

The creation of a star can be observed through a telescope. You won't see the entire process on a film because it takes very long time, longer that the human life span, longer than the time humans had telescopes that allowed them to observe those events. However, they can see different stars in different phases of their formation. If you had read more books than just the bible, you could have seen some intriguing pictures there. Here is a link to some devilish speculations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Evidence...

Just to highlight how silly this claim is: if you combine sodium and chlorine, they will always combine in equal quantities to form salt. You will never "by pure chance" get sugar or a potato. The universe behaves deterministically. If you want to believe that deterministic and consistent behaviour is because of a god, then go ahead. It can't be disproved (because it isn't science; it's faith). That is a reasonable application of faith. But don't try and pretend that your faith trumps reality. (I did read once about a US preacher or politician who said that "if the Bible and Reality disagree then it must be Reality that is wrong." But that is not faith; it is pure insanity.)

1. The traditional Islamic/Judaeo/Christian God consists of three main traits, omnipotence, omnibenevolent, and omniscience. 2. I haven't read much on "being" or "god", but I am certain some philosophers out there have argued of the meaning "be" and "god". How could God/ a god be? Can existence exist? Descartes thought of such, you may have heard of his rather infamous Dream Argument, and "I think, therefore I am." 3. The sheer numbers of probability in the creation of the solar system, sun, position of the earth, composition of the earth and so on may have resulted in the belief that our existence was not random, when in fact it may just be so. Maybe humans are just too grateful about life to give credit to probability and numbers. 4. The Bible itself says that it was written by men inspired by God. And I agree with people when they say that self reference is not a good justification. WIP. 5. The possibility is arbitrary. To say the least. You can look at this as how Pascal did once. Search up Pascal's Wager. "Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager 6.

I think it must be this new echo chamber.

I think that is the whole point. After all if it wasn't that, why would it be funny to begin with? A good joke often relies to some degree on a surprising change of perception on something that the audience is familiar with. Being offensive just alone is not terribly funny, even if one adds that it was just a joke. Setting up the offensive bit as the punchline (i.e. contextualize it in a manner) can be.

When you think about it, you cannot be 100% certain. There is a small chance that your Father doesn’t know too. There are better examples of zero existing in the teal world - like the amount of my tax return this year.

Before I go because I have had enough with this. Let me ask you - did you witness the singularity become the observable universe? No one was around to witness such events. Faith is the belief in something you cannot see or prove. **** Even a court of law, decisions are made based on evidence - but even with whatever evidence - unless the crime was observed can you say with 100% certainty and no doubt whatsoever that it did in fact (or not) happen? Can you claim something to be completely true even if you have no way of going back in time to see it happen? What does this require? - Faith. You have to possess faith to believe what you do about the universe - you cannot tell me with 100% certainty. Can you prove to me this is how everything began with 100% confidence? And I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you speak of. AND TO YOU JAMEST, Of course, science claims that star formation takes longer than human lifetimes. But even though we are still observing them in different "phases" of formation, we haven't observed it directly from start to finish - again, faith and inferences being made. Mitosis has many different phases, yet we have fully observed the entire process from start to finish. Star formation, not really.

It is science until you apply it. The comment is not stupid. You might not understand it but that not makes it invalid. Specially when you do not reason. I trust this is true. I believe you.

Everything Nature has to offer Now has connection to the first moment of existence on the level of information (at least through spacetime.) Whatever is there at the first moment, call it singularity, God, basic information, whatever, it will be part of nature if it is present at T0. 0*1(something)=

I can bring an infinite number of mathematical predictions whichones can not have a single observation. Faith is needed in science you like it or not...

Here comes the problem. I can take anything around me. My dog walking with me in the forest. She is one in this spacetime even she constantly moving she is one inside of spacetime. If I assume that under the smallest possibly measurable time in this space Nothing happened with the dog how I could ever expect that her absolute biophysical values ever could degrade to mathematically zero information. 0. I can execute this thought experiment with everything from atoms to the universe itself.

I suspect you are confusing matter with mass. Mass is a number, & matter is that stuff we can hold in our hand. It's true we often don't bother distinguishing & take the shortcut (substitution). That doesn't tell me much. Theory is the assumption. What about the evidence? Yes I do my best. What's that? a.dul(l).ed. What are you you talking about? Is it physics? ? I write this way to reduce errors, also because this website's software produces errors. I have not a better method to reduce them (errors). If I make comprimises (I get confused) & you guys lock my threads faster. That's NOT true! That's only your opinion (=guess, or bias). Newspaper columns are also narrow. That I carriage return formally at the end of a phrase is not much different & has a natural pause. What's your problem?

I know... never observable(true), but widely accepted...