Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/04/18 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    If I may comment on just this bit here, your comment appears to show how little you may understand science. Science attempts to provide a clear, cogent, and reliable methodology whereby evidence may be investigated or found for the ideas we espouse. Science isn't discouraged from investigating the supernatural, it has investigated and have found clear, cogent, and reliable evidence lacking.
  2. 2 points
    No offense, Brett, but you really should read the forum rules before posting anything else on this site. It is required that you back up your claims instead of just making stuff up. Whenever I see your name pop up, unsupported nonsense follows. Please at least do a Google search to check your "facts" in the future. You are of course welcome to ask questions to learn.
  3. 1 point
  4. 1 point
    I prefer this version There was a young man from Nepal Who had one triangular ball The square of its weight Times his pecker, times eight Is his number, so give him a call
  5. 1 point
    The main difference between a cult and a religion is that in a cult the people who know it's bullshit are still alive..
  6. 1 point
    The trouble is it's all about interpretation, just consider what Jesus/NT was trying to teach; imagine Jesus, in his enlightenment, understood what the OT was trying to teach (through the fog of time) and it was the same. So if someone rocked up and said "why should I believe you over what I've been taught" the natural answer is "because it's the same thing, so you don't need too".
  7. 1 point
    There's some element of truth to the idea that people map shapes to sounds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect but it's not clear that it applies to complex alphabets, nor that letters are defined by the shape of the tongue or lips. There are alternative explanations for the shapes of letters- they represented object whose names started with the sound. http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/alphabet_letters_aleph.html Obviously, it's very hard to be certain.
  8. 1 point
    I think I heard Richard Feynman say that electrons move around the nucleus in perpetual motion. What does he mean by this? Sorry if I am wrong, if I am, please explain perpetual motion.
  9. 1 point
    Have you read the sad allegorical tale by Hans Christian Anderson - The Little Match Girl ? Many died of phosphorous poisoning in the manufacture of matches? So be careful.
  10. 1 point
    Apart from a few special letters, (that thing they use for double s and a few accented letters) I don't think there is a Germanic alphabet. Do you mean the Roman alphabet (which is the one used on this web page)?
  11. 1 point
    David Hine has been suspended for 1 week for constantly attempting to reintroduce closed topics.
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    These two must be up for an award of some kind. This is extreme ignorancism at its finest.
  14. 1 point
    And yet you appear to take no issue with using a computer - apparently oblivious to the fact that its integrated circuits were designed by people who were educated in quantum mechanics and electromagnetism, built by people who were educated in engineering and mathematics, and marketed to you by people who were educated in economics/marketing/management. It was packaged by machines designed and built by engineers, delivered to you (or your local store) in vehicles built on the principles of thermodynamics, and probably paid for using networked systems programmed and administered by computer scientists. If the education of the people who made that computer you are now typing and reading on possible was a sad affair and brainwashing, then please feel free not to make use of the end product. And all other products of the modern world which are the result of the efforts of educated...sorry, meant to say brainwashed...people. But since you evidently do, I can only surmise that you are a in fact here only to troll us, because you aren’t taking your very own principles very seriously, do you? And that is what I really call a “sad state of affairs”. You need to realise that yes, creativity is indeed important, but without scientific knowledge to give it a firm basis, it can never produce anything of any practical value, beyond the most trivial of contraptions. The secret is hence not to foster an attitude of “creativity vs science”, but rather to realise that both are needed to make a real impact on the everyday life of ordinary people. Truth be told, this made my day lol
  15. 1 point
    Not splitting hairs at all. The judicial branch should only be concerned with law and not how anyone or any party feels about the law. The legislative branch writes laws. It is the legislative branch that considers all views when writing laws. Once a law is law the judicial branch is black & white by design. In Congress members are called "representatives" because it is their job to represent their constituents. The will of a representatives constituency matters to a congressman. The only thing that is supposed to matter to a judge is the law.
  16. 1 point
    https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview201516/Vaccination ‘No Jab No Pay’ and other immunisation measures https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/babies/parents-who-refuse-to-vaccinate-will-be-docked-money-from-their-family-tax-benefit-from-today/news-story/9d091a5d6ec0b0f597a385adb9f25c7d AS PART of the changes for the new financial year, from today parents who refuse to vaccinate their children will be docked money from their family tax benefit. Under the Federal Government “No Jab, No Pay” program, Family Tax Benefit Part A payments will cop a fortnightly $28 reduction for each unvaccinated child. http://www.vaccinationawareness.com.au/Vaccine_Exemptions.html Vaccine Exemptions in Australia Vaccination is not compulsory in Australia, so the decision not to vaccinate yourself, or your child does not require government registration or justification. Since January 2016 however, families with a child (up to age 20) and currently registered with a Conscientious or Religious exemption (along with the partially vaccinated), were provided a time-limited period (1 January 2016 to 31 December 2017) to commence a free 'catch-up' with the current National Immunisation Program Schedule (NIPS), or be denied further government payments. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I know it may sound like "big brother" but the stark reality is that unvaccinated children are a danger to themselves and the community at large. There has also been talk re making vaccinations compulsory.
  17. 1 point
    ! Moderator Note What you personally think does not matter. What matters is the science. Posting quotes is not science. Since I am tired of your trolling, this is going in the trash.
  18. 1 point
    The Holy Ghost - you pray to the Holy Ghost for wisdom and guidance before reading the bible. It guides you and you get the meaning from it what god wants you to take from it for that time. That's the idea anyway.
  19. 1 point
    In reality, anyone can (and should, on occasions where they notice) point out errors in scientific and other scholarly publications, including plagiarism. The quality of the scientific literature depends on all stakeholders taking an active role in correcting errant publications. The reliability of the scientific literature depends on science being self-correcting. Most of the plagiarism I've caught has been on the student side, usually well before material is submitted for publication. (I mentor lots of student research, and in spite of ample training and care, when the crunch of deadlines approach, plagairism occurs about 10% of the time.) A few years back, I did catch a case where a paper of mine had been copied, both the exact method (slightly different system) as well as part of the method section. Eventually a Corrigendum was published here:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0256-307X/27/8/089902/pdfMy original paper can be found here:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0256-307X/27/8/089902/pdfThe paper from Chinese Physics Letters which copied my method without attribution is here:http://cpl.iphy.ac.cn/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=37803I didn't notice the issue and move toward corrective action until 6 years or so after the other paper was published. It would have been nice had someone brought it to the journal editors' attention sooner.Striking Similarities between Courtney, 1996 and Wang and Lin, 2004: Main idea of using closed orbit theory to determine initial angles of closed classical orbits from quantum recurrence spectra. Detailed method for computing initial angles. Abstract excerpts From the abstract of Courtney, 1996: For a given initial state, closed-orbit theory gives the dependence of this recurrence amplitude on the initial angle of an orbit. By comparing the recurrence amplitudes for different initial states, the initial conditions of closed classical orbitsare determined from quantum spectra. From the abstract of Wang and Lin, 2004: For a given initial state, closed-orbit theory gives the dependence of this recurrence amplitude on the initial angle of an orbit. By comparing the recurrence amplitude for different initial states, we can determine the initial angles of theclosed classical orbits from the quantum recurrence spectra. Excerpts from paragraph 2: From paragraph 2 of Courtney, 1996: Semiclassical quantization techniques reverse the causal role between quantum and classical behavior by using the classical solutions to construct approximate quantum solutions. From paragraph 2 of Wang and Lin, 2004: Semiclassical quantization techniques reverse the causal role between quantum and classical behavior by using the classical solutions to construct approximate quantum solutions. Compare Equations 4-10 and related discussion of Courtney, 1996 with Equations 2-6 and related discussion of Wang and Lin, 2004. Compare Figure 1 of Courtney, 1996 with Figure 1 of Wang and Lin, 2004. Compare caption and column headings of Table 1 of Courtney, 1996 with caption and column headings of Table 1 of Wang and Lin, 2004. Excerpts from concluding paragraph: From concluding paragraph of Courtney, 1996: In summary, a method is presented for determining the initial conditions of classical orbits from the quantum spectra… From concluding paragraph of Wang and Lin, 2004: In summary,we have presented a simple method to extract the closed orbits from the quantum spectra. If contacting the publisher of the work containing the plagiarism is unsatisfactory, I would contact the author(s) and publisher of the original work that was plagiarized. I would also give ample public notice in forums like this one and possibly others. Errors in scholarship (including plagiarism) should be brought to the attention of a wide audience.
  20. 0 points
    A cult is a religion. What's the difference according to you?
  21. 0 points
  22. -1 points
    Clever compartmentalization, but there is no time flow in realtime it is always now, so you are nullifying realtime by saying in the context of spacetime, same dumb argument every time. In the context of realtime, spacetime is not possible so you cant use it as though it has already been established. The realtime is when now exists, when now is relative, when a point is relative it is the only point that exists, it is stationary and fixed, it is here and now. This is what both relativity and our senses actually tell us, that now is relative and it is always here and now.
  23. -1 points
    Yes, vaccinations are linked to cancer, as, cancer is a dying rotten cluster of cells, forming things like apses and growths that infect other cells with their excesses. This means that, as the vaccination is supposed to be a weak version of the disease, these are also 'cancerous,' as they lend to the rotten presence of cancer, stimulating it no end. Or, why does cancer emanate from rotten bones? This is because the cancer will be dysfunctional cell types, as they are rotting, and, that is toxic to other cells.
  24. -1 points
    I agree with Taingorz. It's just the same in the UK. If you don't bow down and conform to their fake 'big bang' hypothesis, you're a 'heretic'. They forget that BB was put forward as a joke by Rev. Lemaitre in 1927 to wind up some extremely pompous scientists of that day. New 'fools' are still 'fooled' by it to this very day. Nothing changes. Beyond belief!!! David
  25. -1 points
    At least were moving this in the right direction. Much more interesting than quantum crap, David
  26. -1 points
    Isn't 'science' education" actually brainswashing? Yes of course it is, the whole 'education' system is here to dumb people down, take away their creativity and learn to conform. That's why the theories of 'scientists' are so very strange, they can't think straight anymore and confuse mathematics for the real world. It's a sad state of affairs.
  27. -1 points
    One thing about space and relativity. Doesn't relativity theory say that 'space' is 'curved'. This seems to be an impossibility to me. 'space' can obviously not 'curve'. That one can calculate nonsense with tensor-calculus doesn't make something automatically true of course!
  28. -1 points
    Fossils pre date the time of Christ. The church exists because of cultural relays between people of the time period, where they remembered Christ and observed his teachings. This is why they gather even today to hear the words he shew the world. The gospels were written by the apostles. There is a document called the gospel of Judas, for example, that was found in a barn somewhere. These must be the basics of his teachings, these 'documents' are references to his being here, and, his message. The Romans had logs of events, yes? These are likely recorded and preserved by the historians.
  29. -1 points
    well space time really can't exist but I will leave that for now, And experiments agree? That remains to be seen then.Because it is never about the experiments but about the interpretation of the experiments of course. Just a little logical thinking can show space can not curve. You don't need higher math or experiments.
  30. -1 points
    How funny! A clock doens't measure any time, of course. How can it? Time is extremely misunderstood by scientists, still they use something they don't understand all the time. The whole of physics is build on a very weak base. They don't know what 'time', is, nor what 'space' is etc, Still they build theories on this. Personally I call that 'psychotic'. Take time: "Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads" lol, how circular it all is! Like nearly everything in physics.
  31. -1 points
    But that is circular! pffffffffffffffffff
  32. -1 points
    Really? Please do you mean that you really don't know what circular is???????
  33. -1 points
    You think I do not? well, why do you think that? What does it matter????????????????????? Gee! 'scientists use 'time' all the time (pun intended) , while at the same time they have no clue what it actually is! And you really think it doesn't matter? Ah well.....
  34. -1 points
    the junk dna of the universe...a necessary placeholder situated arithmetically between the logical algorithms that pertain to the real physical meanings that code for space, matter, energy
  35. -1 points
    The way circuits work, and, they work in everything electrical, they transfer energy from one place to another. This is where they will provide power to the machine, but, it is only possible to provide motion through magnetism too. Luckily there is the concept of electromagnetism, of course, so the movement part of the mechanism will be provided by the electricity too. This means that the power will provide the motion - it is not that hard to understand, is it? ~ I am of course speaking to laymen that are cruising this forum, hoping they will grasp my concepts. Before we continue into new types of circuits, let's hear from the community who usually find me wrong no matter what I say?
  36. -1 points
    "The Law is not itself God, nor is God the Law." -Dietrich Bonhoeffer Attempts to achieve total conscienceness exhibit asymptotic freedom. Simplicity and clarity are signposts on the way to truth, but the approach of creationism produces a false simplicity at best. It's wrong to question motives, but the desire to "know" can become obsessive and can turn into a desire for there to be nothing unknown at all as an achievable goal. "Turn key" belief systems do not dispel mystery, they whitewashe it. Now then, to prove that classic creationism is in no way possible would be to prove that an omnipotent creator does not exist. And, quantum mechanics seems to allow for the possibility of creationism, dinosaur bones in the dirt and all. However, it is to be hoped that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent being would not play "Where's Waldo?" on us, and that God would not cheat if playing solitaire (or not).
  37. -2 points
    They cannot divide as they are not airborne, nor do you find them outside the body. This means tissue will just become cancerous, that it will become defective and become unhealthy. ~ By the way, the cure for cancer is "spearmint." This freshens the tissue, and, it becomes healthy again. With that as evidence, as I have had cancer before, and cured myself, this thesis is correct.
  38. -2 points
    Now, THAT sounded exactly like the text in the texbooks when I was at University. And boring at that. No, it is NOT the way it works in the real world. I once studied physics/math and clinical psychology. Yes, there is brainwashing going on, starting from early school. And yes, school (including uni) make peopel very dumb, stupid, kills creativity and so on and so forth. school is not very good for once mental health! I do understand people here don't want to see that after sometimes years of swallowing nonsense by the educational ahum institutes. If people only knew where 'education' came from.
  39. -2 points
    Hi Taingorz, I agree with 90% of your post. All developments today come from commercial industry, the NHS, and so forth. Sometimes industry work with colleges, such as Imperial here in London under joint research programmes, but that's about it. The last 'academic' breakthroughs were from Hubble and Einstein, a fellow Jew, who grasped a fundamental concept through being inspired by Maxwell's equations, but this was over 100 years ago. Hubble's observations were the very last of note from academia. The 'era' of academia is now firmly over. Stephen Hawking contributed nothing original, and just parroted Einstein and Hubble. It become like a silly show, where he often blasphemed The Holy Spirit in public, and along with deluded Dawkins, they were no more than 'fools'. There are now no original thoughts coming out of academia, and if anyone dare to suggest something original, it's instantly condemned. We now know Hubble' s Constant is 70.98047 beyond all doubt, and that was instantaneously condemned without them even seeing the equation!!!! So 'big bang' is now dead, and the field open for a better model. For me, the Torah Genesis account of the universe ticks all the boxes, and as it was handed to Moses from our Creator, Jesus, is beyond all doubt. Kind regards, David All the 'new' developments today come from Chinese and Indian industries. All the stuff in the shops now comes from the far east, where new technologies are continuously emerging. It's a 'second' industrial revolution, and we are now merely a customer. We need to accept that as fact. EMI in Hayes did much research in many areas, including medical, but sadly now is gone. It's all now done in China. Philips (Sony) here still do research, but that's about it. All science here (UK) now does is 'brainwashing' with fake theories -so sad, when only 60 years ago, it was open, honest, and productive, David
  40. -2 points
    Nope , you are now confusing 'science' and 'technology". Despite popular opinion, the two have nearly nothing to do with each other. And sometimes , 'technology' helps 'science' a bit forward. But not too much. I really think that in a lot of instances 'science' has hindered progress for technology. And now we are at it, sometimes 'science' stops progress in 'science' which is the case with the the relativity theories.
  41. -3 points
    Well ok, but the basic inventions, like computers, smartphone, transistors etc, aren't made today by commercial institutions, but years and years and years earlier . Just by intelligent individuals, most of the time with no back ground in science at all. Then 'science' hijacked these ideas. I do agree that 'science' is getting obsolete , and slowly but surely will be replaced by , what I call, 'real' science. Modern science as presented to day has it all wrong, very wrong and has nothing to do with reality. Modern science is full with foolish ideas, like the big bang, relativity bollocks, quantum gobbledygook.evolution shite, the nuclear atom filth and so on and so forth.
  42. -4 points
    Nope, technology is NOT applied (modern) physics/science, Besides computers and thinks like that were invented way before there was any quantum physics. It was marketed indeed. By PR firms. But in reality it was all stolen from people way more intelligent and creative then ahum 'scientists'. Actually it is with ALL inventions that 'science' claimed to be the originator of it. However there is in reality NOTHINg that came out of 'modern science'. Nothing, Zilch, Zero. Everything was made way before (modern) physics. And besides that, quantum physics is extremely wrong, just like relativity , the big bang and so on and so forth. People seem no not to like the idea that all real inventions where hijacked by modern science! While modern science had in reality nothing to do with it. I understand, it is a difficult thing to graps, but there is plenty of evidence.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.