Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/12/18 in all areas

  1. And where did you get this idea? I mean if you would have said "religion" maybe I would not bring it up but what makes you think Christianity "established laws"? The concept of "laws" was there far before Christianity. And what about let's say Japan, South Korea. Seem pretty evolved from many points of view. Would you say that they are not part of modern society because Christianity is as present there? Also I wanted to add that many see the Middle Ages (dark age especially) as a period of social regress dominated by religion. "Age of Faith" Personally I think Christianity overall did slightly more bad than good but that is just my opinion. Also what do you mean "for white man"? You know where Christianity comes from right? It ain't from Wisconsin, Vermont, Amsterdam or Oslo, I'll tell you that. I recommend you read more about ancient history and also stop using the phrase "white man". It's offensive.
    3 points
  2. Does it seem ridiculous because Oprah actually is a self made Billionaire?
    2 points
  3. Why do you hate due process, Ten Oz?!? It’s a sad state of affairs, summarized nicely by this song (“A Scary Time for Boys”):
    2 points
  4. Interesting. You don't understand the physics, and yet know that it's dogma. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune Could not have appeared as a term? You put an unknown term (e.g. "x") in the equation and then solve for x. Physicists do this all the time.
    2 points
  5. <NitPickerMode> Newton was basically an alchemist and theologian. Debatable, one should know how much time and effort he placed in the different disciplines (which I don't know). A difference with Newton is that Leibniz stood fully in the academic disciplines of his day, where Newton, e.g. in his theology would have been seen as a heretic (and therefore Newton decided not to publish his theological writings). In his theological studies Newton e.g. denied the Trinity, based on textual criticism. Modern New Testament scholars agree with his conclusions. </NitPickerMode>
    2 points
  6. Oh come on, INow… Let me bask in the glory of finally starting a topic which has lasted more than a page.
    1 point
  7. One could go back further, Mendel was instrumental in cementing Darwin's evolutionary theories, for example. It is important to keep in mind that church has funded scientific work. Not to mention that many if not most scholars were religious, of course. I.e. there is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist. The schism seems to be of a more modern event which is arguably connected to the rise of secularism.
    1 point
  8. Update: "Jeffrey Zeigler, 53, was found guilty of assault with intent to commit great bodily harm less than murder and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony in the April 12 incident at his home involving 14-year-old Brennan Walker. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, but Judge Wendy Potts gave jurors the option of convicting Zeigler on the lesser charge. Zeigler could get up to 10 years in prison for the assault conviction, plus a mandatory two years for the firearm count. Potts revoked his bond and ordered him to jail pending sentencing Nov. 13." https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/oakland-county/2018/10/12/rochester-hills-homeowner-who-fired-teen-trial/1613420002/
    1 point
  9. Silvestru you know your history, good answers. +1 John Not sure what you mean by 'grand' but Silvestru was right about one thing The ancient Greeks did indeed lay the foundations of modern western society, even though they were still a slave owning culture. Previous cultures, and many subsequent ones, were directed from the top down by some central authority - King, Emperor, general no good dictator whatever. The bod at the top had well rewarded henchmen to keep order and extract the bulk of the wealth of his 'subjects', but usually the bod at the top in theory owned everything. The ancient Greeks were the first rich culture to operate collective government, where the several bods at the top were only slightly better off than those they lead. I won't say those under them since they were not secure and could be outvoted. Another culture in History that successfully operated this system were the Vikings.
    1 point
  10. The best way to do it I think is like this: Copy text > Hit the quote button (speech mark ") in the bar above in the text box > Paste text in > Copy url from that page, make a space and paste at the bottom. Double tap your cursor out of the box at the end of the line or try clicking outside the box to escape... can be one or the other. Also, don't quote a whole page if there's a lot; just post the important bits and the link can be followed if someone is interested enough.
    1 point
  11. Your crystal ball seems to be functioning correctly. It's our politics (and in some cases, our world) that is broken. It's time to get to work repairing it.
    1 point
  12. Mine has Trump winning in 2020 with Kanye West as his new running mate...so I thought it was broken...
    1 point
  13. 1 point
  14. A civil war will not happen again in the US. I have faith in my American brothers; They can be led astray, but they'll come to their senses eventually. Civil wars are usually about the simplest reason, money and wealth. The American Civil War was not about slavery, it was about a system that allowed the accumulation/retention of wealth in the South. I see the next civil war in China. The most billionaires of any nation, and over a billion people living on $5 per day. Eventually those billion people are gonna demand their share of the pie.
    1 point
  15. It's even got Taylor Swift out telling people to vote Democrat. Must be serious.
    1 point
  16. With that amount of money you don't want to loose any so risk is a big issue. Are you lucky? I know litttle of the Polish system but is there anything equivalent to UK premium Bonds? https://www.nsandi.com/premium-bonds?dclid=CIPj4saQ_t0CFdDW3godRCUH-Q You can't loose your money, and on average they pay out an amount equivalent to current interest rates. However that is not evenly distributed so some get much large amounts (two get £1million every month) And any return is tax free. A good place to start.especially if you are a lucky person. Are you a Dyson? To succeed like he has done you need to be a good businessman as well as a good inventor. Most are not. So if not, don't try it. Too many loose all that way. Some make money by finding something valuable and selling it, for instance a lost old manuscript, painting, antique etc. You need the interest and the right sort of 'eye' for this. I know someone who makes a good profit 300% + (but in small sums) because she has a good eye for trends. For instance she bought a collection of soft toys and kept them in tip top condition, then sold them a few years later at vast profit when they became collectable. Taklksing of soft toys I have an aquaintance who was a former sales manager with British Telecom. He made more than his salary by buying soft toys and selling them at (outside) conferences and exhibitions. If you visit exhibitions you will have seen such people. It is a risk but get the right products and the rewards are good. Have you ever helped with a local activity in its fundraising? We used to run the Somerset Rural Music School 'tuck shop' which made a modest but steady and respectable break time profit. Really good training into what sells and what does not, and how much to stock so as not to overstock.
    1 point
  17. I don't believe you know what you are saying, let alone what anyone else is saying. You need to consider very carefully your attitude in this thread and its similarity with your attitude in other threads of yours that have been closed. In essence I have yet seen anyone actually agree with you other then back a bit when some religious bloke claiming god made 50 year old trees in a day! Your agenda, closeted as it is, is probably the reason, and your fanatical disposition in taking philosophical jargon over scientific discipline and facts.
    1 point
  18. Again, we need to avoid the pit falls of your attempted pedantic contrary nonsense.
    1 point
  19. Clinging to ignorance is terrifying, that's why I used the word. What i find terrifying is how human beings can follow a charismatic leader whether there is truth or not. I find it terrifying to think of how many humans have spent their whole lives supporting a religion that promises them a life after death and various other dubious benefits with no end result. What a waste of humanity. Such humans can often despise and even destroy those that don't hold their ridiculous notions. Given a chance religions can act as a tyranny and snuff out any objections with fear, guilt, punishment and even executions. 13 countries punish apostasy with death, try thinking objectively and publishing your work in Saudi, Afghanistan or numerous other Islamic countries - at the very least you will get ostrasized, at worst you will be tortured and executed People should be free of these tyrannies.
    0 points
  20. The following site has a reputation for proper scientific answers by reputable scientific folk. I was originally linked to it by an Astronomer on a now defunct forum, Q: Can space-time exist without matter? So, let's make a single brave assumption, which we need to get any further.Brave assumption: For questions about possibility: the "can x situation exist" questions, we should look to see whether the current best theory in physics admits situation x as a solution. If it is a solution, the answer is yes; if not, no.Right: so can space-time exist without matter?According to our best theory of space-time: yes. Our best theory of space-time is general relativity, and this admits solutions without matter. The Minkowski metric is the simplest: flat space-time with no matter at all.But wait a minute, what about our best theory of matter? This is a variety of quantum field theory. And according to this theory, there is no such thing as no matter. "Empty" space is a seething mass of fields, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence. So according to this theory: no. There is no space-time without matter, because there is never no matter.So... they disagree. What's the real answer? Well, it depends which theory you think will retain its form when the two are unified. At the moment, leading theories of quantum gravity take more from QFT than from GR, so you'd expect the "no" answer to be the one to survive in the future. But physics has a history of surprising us.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In practise, it already has. The constituents of the earliest BB model were a sort of 'energy soup', too hot to permit 'matter' to exist. However, once this 'soup' cooled - then 'matter' appeared. Don't forget that energy and matter are a different expression of the same thing. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Does a falling tree in the forest make a noise if there is nobody who can hear it?In our space-time particles apparently continuously pop into and out of existence, so even a vacuum needs matter. And if there is no matter, and there is therefore no state of matter, then it would be impossible to measure the progress of time and position. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Space-time is an abstract. So insofar as an abstract "exists"....no. Without matter and hence change, space-time would have nothing to reference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My preferred answer is as follows..... Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around? https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11332.html No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation. NB: The "do not exist" I have highlighted is in the actual link as "can and do not exist" Obviously confused by that I E-Mailed Sten Odenwald, the physicst/Astronomer responsible for the answers and he apologised to me and said it was simply a typographical error and should be "do not exist" Staff edit: above taken from https://www.quora.com/Can-space-time-exist-without-matter
    0 points
  21. I'm not interested in your hairy fairy error ridden philosophical nonsense, which is why your threads are closed. And I certainly have appraised you correctly.
    0 points
  22. Yes I guessed that might give you renewed vigour to post your unsupported crap. That has already been explained to you and why your mythical derivation is just that...mythical. But let me show you again...[1] An anomaly was observed with Uranus' orbit which "seemed" to stray from what Newtonian physics said it should be.[2] Upon applying Newtonian physics to the actual "anomaly" it was predicted that another planet should be where Neptune should be.[3] The planet was later observed to be where it was expected, using Newtonian maths, and explaining the "now not so anomalous orbit of Uranus". Newtonian physics was again correct. All other planets aligned with Newtonian, except of course for Mercury and the precession, which was later validated by GR, a theory far more accurate then Newtonian, And of course I also offered two reputable links to support my rather common well known claim. After playing the Joker card, and then the Victim card twice, we now after continued failure play the Dishonesty card......Your "calling my bluff" was no more then a childish effort that could never and was never going to eventuate. Again, if you want to play childish games, I'm sure there would be a forum to tender to your childish needs. The irony meter has busted again! Your threads were closed because your recalcitrant attitude blinded you to the many errors of judgements that you made and the thread [just as this is now] was simply going around in circles.
    0 points
  23. I don't believe you have done anything more then offer some possible alternative that as yet hasn't been accepted due to lack of empirical evidence supporting it. I've also come across fools that diligentley claim they have invalidated GR...I can direct you to that forum if you wish by PM. Quite a confident sounding if arrogant outlook...the same as put by the fool claiming he had invalidated GR, or at least found a better model. Talk is cheap actually. Yes, you need to put up or shut up, and forums such as this open to any Tom, Dick and Harry, is not really the stage to do it on, despite obviously professionals operating here. You know the procedure. I havn't seen that thread nor am I really interested, other then to say and quote an old saying about "one swallow does not a Summer make" or words to that effect. There are many "would be's if they could be's in the world that will always remain "would be's if they could be's" ps: I'm not so young anymore either, and while I have been there, there is much I didn't do that I wished I had. That anyway was not in reference to you or Reg, rather the reality of young up and coming physicists and cosmologists that will show the way and carry the day.
    0 points
  24. I already have. See below. By the way I am not so young anymore either; Been there, done that. No ramblings are involved. I previously provided links to both a "much better defined", line-by-line computer demonstration, together with a paper that describes it, that falsifies Bell's claim and all the existing claims for "loop-hole free" Bell tests (by actually constructing classical entities, that falsify the most fundamental, unrecognized assumption of all, namely that there is "something else to measure" after the first measurement has been completed). Anyone can reproduce the result on their own computer. It has been publicly available for two years, been reproduced by others, and no one of the over 1000 different people that have downloaded the demonstration to date, has been willing to publicly declare that they have found any error it. When I challenged some of the usual suspects here to attempt to do so, they all went silent - see the last post in the thread "Is there any reason this Quantum Telegraph couldn’t work?"; they would rather shut up than calculate, when it means their dogma is being falsified. That is one of the major problems with physics today, everyone says "put or or shut up" and then, when someone actually does "put up", very few are willing to ever admit that they cannot find a flaw in the argument; for fear of "losing face" if someone smarter than they, eventually comes along and finds the flaw, making them look dumb. So everyone just sits on the fence, hoping someone smarter themselves will come along and save them and their dogma. If you think you are that person, then hit me with with best shot. But don't give me any more "ramblings on the fringe of Science": State exactly were some problem lies within the computer demonstration, after you have downloaded it and run it, and actually thought about what you are witnessing. Put up or shut up. I'm calling your bluff.
    0 points
  25. Perhaps before your sympathy for the poor underdog, you would do well to research all that our friend Reg has claimed, both here and elsewhere. Again, like Reg, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If you disagree with what mainstream physics has generally deemed correct, the opportunity is always open for you, Reg or any other young up and comer, to falsify whatever incumbent theory you are trying to falsify. And as you go about preparing a case summary to criticise or falsify some part of accepted mainstream, remember that all those theories that you are trying to invalidate, criticise or falsify, also at one time needed to run the gauntlet so to speak....as will whatever version/interpretation that you or Reg prefer. Or are you like Reg, simply practising some philosophical aspect of interpretation for the sake of being contrary just for the sake of it. Is Newtonian mechanics correct when applied within its zone of applicability? Is GR simply less wrong then Newtonian? Or more accurate then Newtonian? Are they just approximations that give answers that satisfy our needs and endeavours? Yes to all of them is my answer without any need for some abstract philosophical take by anyone that simply chooses to be contrary. Einstein as notable as he was, was also humble enough to admit when he was mistaken. Einstein also had views on the conception of the universe that he mentioned on more then one occasion, that aligned roughly with Spinoza. Again since I hate long posts that virtually say nothing, something Reg is adept at, and apparently yourself. in a few words, as few as possible, please explain to me why you believe Reg needs any sympathy. In my view I would hasten to add that Reg would be tickled pink to at last find someone who agrees with his rather confusing contrary view on science in general. But hey! I'm only a lay person so I'll leave you to ponder on a lay person's thoughts. I once came upon a quote and for the life of me I can't find the bloody thing now...it goes like this, "I don't refuse to eat and drink, just because I don't know the process of digestion" Bingo! found it!!!! Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion? Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.
    0 points
  26. No. They admit she's telling the truth. They just don't care. They are voting to advance an agenda, victims be damned.
    -1 points
  27. -Maths is a concept developed by humans. -I don't think it existed before humans existed. -Math is a concept mostly used by humans (I don't know if animals can use it).
    -1 points
  28. No. Neptune accounted for the discrepancy in the orbit of Uranus. And as we've seen, the existence of Neptune is not something that can be derived from Newtonian theory. As with my response to swansont (bottom of previous page), if what you say here is true, then Phi's claim that mainstream science is being "questioned all the time" is false.
    -1 points
  29. I can understand your sentiments, but I'm not sure turning a blind eye even towards such idiocy is the way to go. My thoughts are he appears to be getting more desperate as he proceeds with his nonsense and in time, like his other threads it will probably be shut down. With the possibility of young students lurking on the forum, I believe his nonsense should be refuted at every turn. Wow! It appears someone is having some problem with my posts and giving me "reds" even a couple of reputable links! Not sure what he/she is trying to prove....perhaps another god botherer has been offended!
    -1 points
  30. Already begun since Trump elected to be President, Civil war is now of whites in USA against blacks
    -1 points
  31. It is your claims and the contents of your posts that are idiocy. You have made many hairy fairy philosophical claims, that at best are confusing and worst certainly reflects an agenda of sorts. Here is another favourite Feynman video of mine that I have posted a few times now and only 7.5 minutes long, but he makes some excellent points. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 In essence I believe I have shown you in error at least three times now, the last being your claim that Newtonian mathematics was not used to predict Neptune. Think about it carefully...It was Newtonian maths that explained all the planetary orbits, and found an error with Uranus......After some thinking, rather then throw out Newtonian as wrong, they surmised an outer planet that maybe having gravitational effects. That planet, Neptune was pin pointed before it was ever observed by Newtonian maths. Then you made another claim about not knowing what gravity was and needed to have that explained to you particularly the scientific methodology that any supposed truth or reality that you think is the goal of science theories is just not so. Now without going back checking over everything, you did not concede on any of those points, nor any other I can think of, simply as per your confusing style, skipped over them and started on something else. And now its playing the victim card and pointing the finger at those that are doing no more then trying to straighten you out and falsifying near all you have claimed because you are simply wrong. No one is out to get you...no one is out to simply be contrary to your views...that appears to be exactly what you are doing. Forget me...while I have done plenty of reputable reading, I am only an amateur lay person, but I believe I am able in general to sort the wheat from the chaff, and in your case, that is mighty easy.
    -1 points
  32. Hi Ghideon, Well, first of all, after I put this to him, Beecee denied that he believes the existence of Neptune was already "in the data". In which case, he's forced to say that a hypothesis was brought to the data. And I think that's exactly right. But how that can possibly be described as a "prediction of the theory" is beyond me. It was, rather, a hypothesis that was compatible with the theory (among countless others), and if true, would explain the anomalous orbit of Uranus. As for the Kepler mission, I couldn't comment.
    -1 points
  33. "No, wrong again Reggy...I'm suggesting nothing". - Beecee (8 posts above)
    -1 points
  34. I accept that many people are decent people and believe in religion, I think they are being deceived often for profit and power. I am attacking the ideas, not the people. I stand against Islam because I want these people to be free - I feel for them and want their minds unshackled. There are many horrible things that happen in the name of faith and where a religion controls it can impose terrible penalties on those that disagree. You call me a bigot, but look at the bigots in religion, holding positions of power and suppressing the ignorant with false promises of rewards of an after life, "miracles" and other things that are is never delivered. Only today Leading Pakistani humanist campaigner, Gulalai Ismail, was arrested in Pakistan. Suppression and bigotry is rife in such countries. All over the world people are arrested, flogged, tortured and killed for daring to question faiths. This same intolerance is found explicit in the texts they reveer. Those followers that, as you rightly point out are good people are guilty of disobeying the more horrible commands of these ancient texts. https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html . Such a God is no example to mankind, he is a vengeful intolerant despot. In many islamic countries like Suadi, Pakistan and Afghanistan children are taught in Mosques that the final word on everything is the Quran (what utter piffle). Women are suppressed under Sharia and are not even allowed out of their houses without permission from a guardian. To a Muslim, any unbeliever is an inferior citizen, not worthy of friendship nor even of looking a Muslim in the eye. They are destined to be dragged to hell by Allah the Merciful's torture Angels, where they will be given molten metal to drink and devil's fruit to eat, whilst their skin is burned of with fire, . Quran (9:73) -when their skin is cremated Allah the merciful "peace be upon him" will helpfully replace it again and again, into eternity. It is religion that is the bigot.
    -1 points
  35. Enzymes are bio-catalyzers like proteins that allow a great number of biological reactions take place at a rate much fast than in its absence. The molecules show high attentiveness for the recognition of the substances. It is to be transformed and they are evolved for thousands of years to make possible a wide variety of transformations related to all forms of life and In this line, a primitive wave of enzyme engineering was developed as a way to use enzymes in industrial processes. One of the first fields was the food industry, Microbial, and plant enzymes, such hydrolases or pectinases were used in food preparation, such as bread, beer, milk derivatives or juice preparation as ingredients.
    -1 points
  36. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6269297/Islamists-rally-Pakistan-death-sentence-Christian.html
    -1 points
  37. I think the reality which we find ourselves in right now requires less need for the girl from the video to have a chaperone or a companion compared say, to NYC in the 80’s or the middle ages or any previous era. Plus theres really nothing condenscending or diminishing about a woman requiring a companion or a chaperone and her complaining about it in the song is just only a level short of pouring bleach on men spreading their legs on the subway.
    -1 points
  38. @ Beecee -- no offence intended but it's blindingly obvious that you lack the analytic tools necessary to appraise the situation. I suggest you do a little reading on deduction, induction, abduction, inference to the best explanation... then get back to me.
    -2 points
×
×
  • 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.