Leaderboard

Recent evidence suggests this argument sprang from straw....

I didn’t think you were an idiot, at least not until I read this. You’re correct. You’re no Feynman, but you also didn’t state that years of training was required to grasp deeper concepts. What you did do (and do frequently) is to belittle others and tell specific individual members that they are specifically incapable of grasping your point. When there is a misunderstanding in a text based medium, the fault generally lies with the author. Feynman didn’t put others down. He lifted them up. You can comment on my attitude all you want. That won’t change the validity of my point. Focus on your argument. If people struggle to understand it, then focus on articulating it differently. I’m also not the only one that has asked you to be more concise. Perhaps start there. If you’re unable to explain something simply or in terms even a child can grasp, then it’s far more likely that you’re the one who doesn’t understand the concept well enough.

I know all about your Big Bang theories, your evolutionary concepts, your philosophies how a God couldn't possibly exist, your statistics showing how everything came to be by pure chance, etc. And if the universe did not come about by pure chance - what did happen? Perhaps a better question would be 'who' did it? *********** I just choose to refuse to accept this information. I NEED FAITH. Faith is the only way I can believe it to be true. Nothing can change my worldview and my faith I have in Jesus Christ. The faith you possess to believe how processes like evolution and the Big Bang actually occurred matches the faith I have that my God created everything in existence. The faith you have to believe in the occurrence of the Big Bang and transpeciation is the same faith you have that the chair you're sitting in will hold you, that the building you're in will not collapse on you, that the planet you're on will not disintegrate. ********** Unless you can construct a time machine and go back to the "very beginning", your faith in scientific explanations will be no different from my faith in Biblical interpretations. So explain to me how you'll be 100% confident in the formation of the universe once you board a time machine and travel back to the beginning.

Long enough for us to work out why it's not been eradicated. .https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2358959/ It's a bit like sickle cell anaemia. Were you aware of that, or just airing your ignorance?

What is this based on? More than when? Since last year, 20, 50, 100, 200 years? Also fractured on what? It gets thrown around a lot, but from my personal experience it just seems that debates are just far more in the open and with larger participation (at least in part due to social media). In the olden times you just don't hang out with folks that you disagree with if you can. Now, everyone has to make their opinion known (as I just did).

That is not what "faith" means. You might be looking for the word "trust". But the whole purpose of the scientific method is to try and ensure we don't have to rely on the impartiality or perspective of individuals. And it seems to work pretty well in the long run.

I can't say you are wrong. Cheers!

Good. We are agreed then. There is no scientific evidence for ESP.

Solved dad!! See the solution given below

I will resist the instinctive urge to downvote your posts everytime i see that pic: although under Bourinho that hate is turning into sympathy. But welcome anyway.

But by ascribing "consciousness" or "awareness" to bacteria you are removing any useful meaning from those words. By your definition, water is "conscious" of the fact it has to run own hill. This is just silly (and further undermines your claims to be a "philosopher"). We now have to come up with new words to describe what the rest of the world means by "consciousness" and "awareness". Your modesty is impressive. It is rather hard to read your posts as if they were written by someone knowledgeable and brilliant. Suspension of disbelief only goes so far.

God is emotion? That doesn't really correspond with the view of most people who assign the specific property "creator of everything" to their God. What is the point of such a definition if it doesn't correspond to how people use the word? That seems rather restrictive. How can you make claims about the consciousness of bacteria without considering the consciousness of household appliences, such as toasters or hair dryers, which meet the requirements of your first level?

! Moderator Note Off topic posts have been split to the trash.

Lasse has been banned as a sock puppet of 1x0

Imagine a single ripple (centred on where the pebble went in) being self-sustaining. So that disturbance in the field is a "thing" (electron or whatever). It doesn't continually require energy to keep it going because it is not a ripple in water (water has mass and requires energy to make it go up and down). That wavelike disturbance can now move around and it represents the position of the electron. Actually, the square of the amplitude of the ripple represents the probability of finding the electron at that location (if I have extended your metaphor appropriately) so the electron is most likely to be in the middle but could be elsewhere. There is a really, really tiny probability that it will be detected on the other side of the galaxy. You can then do calculations by analysing the paths of these ripples. If you add together every single possible path the ripple could take, you will find that some of the waves will constructively interfere and some will destructively interfere and the most probable path ends up being the one that corresponds to a "classical" description of the path of the electron (or photon, or whatever). This is how quantum theory, with all its probability based things, can describe the behaviour of photons and reproduce the results of classical optics. (See the Feynman lectures on QED if you haven't already.)

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.

Given your position, there is not really much to discuss here. But thanks for sharing.

Probably look at obtaining Oxygen from the dust and rocks. Multiple ways to use the Oxygen(energy storage, breathing) and useful byproducts.

Amazing. I only don't see why it should be called "flute", but to my opinion, synthesized music doesn't need to reproduce existing instruments. By the way, this sound is periodic, as about any one from a synthesizer, so it has no chance to imitate a flute, a sax, a violin... whose sound is inherently non-periodic. The misconception (sound quality = harmonics) dates back to Helmholtz and is carefully propagated to new student generations since then. With a periodic sound, one can more or less imitate a clarinet or an oboe.

Hi DrP, nice to see you here! The very nature and usefulness of a forum are the contributions that don't go in the expected direction, so "isn't what you were looking for" is absolutely fine. A somewhat similar attempt was at the octo-basse, an oversized bowed string instrument made by Vuillaume. As the musician couldn't reach the top of the strings, he played the notes' height on a keyboard, and a mechanical transmission pressed the strings at the corresponding length. No electricity needed. And believe it or not, the Montreal symphonic orchestra has recently bought such an instrument. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=octo-basse

Sorry for joining a year late. I just joined this site. I was surprised Kip Thorne was so tentative in that video. On another site a similar conversation started with reference to this link: This is the best attempt I've seen to support a physical intuition of the causal relation between curved time and gravitational attraction. On Earth (modest gravity/ normal speeds) Earth's mass produces a time dilation gradient that is way more important than space curvature. Our progress through time is like light moving through a prism - the drag increases toward the thicker part of the prism and the light bends. I think this is in line with Bird11dog 2014 thread as far as I understood it. Excerpting from the other site, I said this: This is how I see the video. Everybody knows that when you are mowing the lawn and hit the sidewalk at an angle the difference in the resistance between grass and concrete makes the mower change direction towards the grass. Similarly, when light passes through a retarding medium with angled surfaces ( a prism) the right and left differences in the amount of glass as opposed to air makes the light change direction towards the thicker glass. Exotically, as an object is traveling through time in any gravitational field (for instance near the earth's surface) the modestly greater retardation in such progress that any object, even a point particle, experiences on its high and low flanks (as a result of gravitational time dilation) shifts the direction in space of its progress through time. Thus, if unsupported, it falls. Time dilation is responsible for what we experience as gravity in normal low velocity settings. But when something is traveling through space at a speed equivalent to how we are all progressing through time, (like light) then the curvature of space shows dramatically and the total effect, space plus time, is double what we normally experience. If Newton thought light had mass he would have predicted the same starlight curvature around the sun that Einstein mistakenly originally predicted before he figured out the double effect above. In this sense you can think of Newton gravity as the equivalent of time curvature without space curvature. I am without credentials so will now let the physicists have their way with me. Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-gravitational-time-dilation-cause-gravitys-attraction.881449/ And then BepiIT (who sounds like he might be a physicist), said this: The GR metric for Newton's gravity is obtained from the Schwarzschild metric by assuming non relativistic velocities (v^2/c^2 << 1) and weak gravitational field (GM/Rc^2 << 1). In Cartesian coordinates It reads ds^2 = -(c dt)^2(1-2GM/rc^2) + (dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)(1+2GM/rc^2) so it does contain a time deformation term g_00 = (1-2GM/rc^2) (causing gravitational time dilation) as well as a space deformation term (1+2GM/rc^2). For non relativistic velocities, the time deformation is c^2 times larger than space curvature, because of the c^2 term in (c dt)^2. Therefore, to leading term Newtonian space is flat. And in fact the equation of Newtonian motion derived via a least action principle do not make use of the spatial term of the metric. Newton gravity originates from the g_00 term, as its spatial gradient (as Pervect wrote), and may be intuitively understood as a differential motions described by Bill Ryan (in fact gravitational force is the gradient of the potential, which in the above metric corresponds to the g_00 term). Space curvature is relevant for relativistic motions, e.g. by doubling the light deflection effect in the weak field limit (whereas for strong gravitational fields the space curvature term becomes dominant). Space curvature is also important for non relativistic motions if the measure is very accurate, e.g. by opening the orbit of planets and causing a precession like that measured for Mercury. Therefore the visual exemplification of a rubber sheet curved by a heavy ball (the Sun), with smaller marbles orbiting around due to space curvature, is essentially wrong, because Newtonian space is flat. Eugene Khutoryansky's video is thus correct as far as I understand. The problem is that no GR book discusses this explicitly, but leave the point rather implicit (see for example the discussion on Newtonian metric in Hartle's "Gravity"). Only exception I know is this book: http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/ by David Eckstein. Hope this helps a bit. Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-gravitational-time-dilation-cause-gravitys-attraction.881449/

Eventually, yes.

Koti; Actually I did. I had considered the Gaia hypothesis, panpsychism, and other theories of consciousness; I also considered going into the idea of "self", Jung's Oneness and Individualization and how that relates to the mind/soul; I also considered trying to explain the unconscious aspect of mind and how that works with emotion, the self, and how emotion, the unconscious and quantum physics all seem to disregard time, and how all of this causes the saying that "'God' has many faces", along with other ideas. But I threw all of that out because I thought it would just cause confusion. I also numbered the points so that they could be disputed individually. But all you really need to know is my summary: So the basic steps are that life becomes aware of need, then surroundings, then knowledge, then emotion. Religion is the Discipline that studies emotion; "God" is what we call it. You might want to consider that skip reading or scanning Philosophy will not get you anywhere. Gee iNow; Again, I ask do you read? I stated the following at the start of my post: "The Religion forum is in the Philosophy section, not the Science section, for a reason, so you would need to have some understanding of Philosophy." Then I stated this at the end of my post: "You would have to have a very good understanding of consciousness, and probably some familiarity with a few of the theories of consciousness in order to understand my above statements." What do you think those two statements mean? How long do you think it takes to get a "very good understanding of consciousness"? Years. Well, I don't intend to "belittle" anyone and am willing to work hard to help someone understand a concept. But there are not a lot of abstract thinkers, and they would have to have a passing familiarity with logic. Bullshit. His contempt for Philosophy was well known, which is why I never paid much attention to him. I don't know what he thought about Religion, but saw him in a video years ago where he described the "God" concept as too parochial -- that was the word he used, "parochial". I understood the psychological ramifications of his statement immediately because Religion, "God" concepts, and psychology are closely related, but I didn't understand how brilliant he actually was until I saw the magnet video. He was definitely an abstract thinker with a brilliant mind -- his passing is our loss. I haven't figured out your point yet. If your point was that I am not a nice person, then hell, I knew that. My husband was the nice one. Do you remember that people like to kill off philosophers? (chuckle) Then please introduce me to someone who understands consciousness "well enough". I would love to meet him/her. Are we done with this stupid argument now? Gee