jajrussel

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

There is no distinction between push and pull; both are forces.

And

46 minutes ago, joigus said:

But then it's not about F=ma vs F=GmM/r².

Actually, I think I’m getting it, but I searched the number of times the word pull and push showed up in just one volume of a University Text and the score was 226 for pull, and 187 for push. Note, this was entirely in interest of their being anthropomorphic terms of little use in physics, yet still extremely useful unless they are used as terms of physics. Which isn’t exactly what you said

2 hours ago, joigus said:

push/pull is not a physical distinction. It's anthropomorphic.

'Work' is another anthropomorfic term, although extremely useful. But push vs pull is not useful at all in terms of physics.

I misunderstood the application, you wrote push (versus) pull is not useful. I could have saved myself a lot of mental exercise had I read and understood correctly the first time. Sorry, and thanks.

45 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ubi materia ibi geometria

Einstein took it to the next level. 👍

push/pull is not a physical distinction. It's anthropomorphic.

'Work' is another anthropomorfic term, although extremely useful. But push vs pull is not useful at all in terms of physics.

You forced me to Google, thank you  . I will disagree until I find a reason to ag🤣ree .

I looked up Ubi materia ibi geometria also , in the description the statement is made that nature and mathematics are intimately connected. There is a PDF I intend to read to see if it allows me to continue to disagree. 👍

10 hours ago, jre84 said:

this is simple physics from school? are you educated in post secondary? a little background would be nice. also Good day

No. I don’t think it would have made a difference then, but I don’t know. There was a tumor I was living with unknowingly. A few years ago they took it out. Background wise unless you consider YouTube and or SFN post secondary education the answer is no  

17 hours ago, Janus said:

It is really important to grasp what the variables mean in each equation.

In F=ma,  we are talking about the amount of force needed to give a mass of m an acceleration of a

With F = GMm/d^2 we are talking about the gravitational force acting between masses M and m at a center to center distance of d.  To make this clearer, F is often written as F_g

Now if we were considering how much acceleration mass m would undergo as the result of gravitational attraction between m and M_, Then we we are saying that F_g is assuming the role of F in F=ma

or that F=F_g

thus we can substitute ma for F_g to get

ma = GMm/d^2

cancel m on both sides of the equation and get

a = GM/d^2, which tells us that the acceleration of m due to the gravitational attraction is independent of the magnitude of m's mass.

 

 

 

So there is a distinction there is F=ma     push

then there is F=GMm/R²      pull

F =ma seems incomplete as a formula because it only accounts for how m is affected by acceleration, but what it seems to me doesn’t matter, because then, who? I think it is credited to Einstein, says acceleration is the same as gravity. So if F= ma then gravity can not be a force because you have to multiply acceleration which is the same as gravity times mass to get what is called force, so gravity and force can not be the same thing. Is this why it is said that gravity is not a force?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

There’s no lift - there’s no upward force

This is where I got the word lift. Not arguing just saying. Not certain if I added this picture correctly? Guess I have to hit submit to find out… note it is not a link, just part of a screenshot.

54 minutes ago, Genady said:

Okay, let's look at the first "equation", F = ma= (G*M₁*M₂)/R²

It is not an equation, but rather a shortcut of two equations:

F=ma

ma=GM1M2R2

The first equation is the Newton second law. It is fine.

However, the second equation is meaningless, unless you have a reasonable interpretation for it.

PS. You are only a bit older than me.

Okay, I was thinking for the first question that if both ma and GMm/R² equaled force I could write it F=ma=GMm/R² . Which is not exactly how I wrote it the first time but I borrowed the shorthand from swansont for the latter portion. What I thought I was writing is force equals mass time acceleration ,and force equals G times mass one times mass two divided by the radius squared. Since force is described as equal to both expressions. I assumed it would be okay to write F=ma=Gmm/R²  since the expression on each side of the equal signs I presumed to be equal. 
As for the second question.

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

No

ma = GMm/r^2

the mass m cancels, as it’s on both sides, but M remains, so a = GM/r^2 

Gravitational acceleration doesn’t depend on the mass of the object, but does depend on the mass of the (usually celestial) object exerting the gravity

Are you saying that by canceling mass out, force and acceleration are shown to be the same?

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

There is a speed such that the centripetal force is equal to the gravitational force. v = sqrt(GM/r). 

That’s the speed of a circular orbit at r. You would be weightless, but not lift up. (but the earth would fall apart before this could happen)

Far from throwing a wrench into it - the above equation uses the equation to solve for v

The mass of the earth would be slightly larger, increasing the pull on the moon by a small amount. Any other effect on the moon would be found in GR

 

Thanks , I don’t write or think fast enough. I’ll read and think on this a while.

Just now, Bufofrog said:

Why do you think it would "throw a wrench into into F=GM₁M₂/R²  ?    

Doesn’t F=GM₁M₂/R² apply to me and the earth? At a spin of 28,437 km per hour we lift off. My assumption is that in order for that to happen the acceleration due to spin would have to exceed the forces connecting us.

18 minutes ago, Genady said:

No.

 

No.

Okay… I’m nearly 70 years old, and not in school. I’m pretty sure the rules of the forum will allow you to elaborate.

I read that Earth would have to spin at 28,437 km per hour to cause us to lift off the surface. I’m assuming at that point we would  effectively be weightless.  Seemingly throwing a wrench into F=GM₁M₂/R²  , so what effect would it have on the moon?

I merged two formulas for Force  I saw in a video. First -  Did I do it right?

F = ma= (G*M₁*M₂)/R²

1. F = ma

2. F = G M₁M₂/ R²

Second- If it is right does G/R² represent the acceleration part of F= ma ?

On 1/11/2024 at 7:49 AM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Would the 1960s hippies be considered Pagans?

I remember reading that the root of the word pagan was essentially equal to peasant/not of the city. Apparently, now it is said to be the term that Christian Romans etc. used to allude to anyone not of the Abrahamic religions generally as a slur. My observation is that pagans seem to prefer the peasant/not of the city referral. Was it the video thumbnail that prompted the question.

On 1/11/2024 at 9:57 PM, sethoflagos said:

Just running with Weinreich's quip about the difference between a language and a dialect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_language_is_a_dialect_with_an_army_and_navy). 

😂 I didn’t understand what was written in Wikipedia any more than I did the comment.

On 1/11/2024 at 12:23 PM, J.C.MacSwell said:

Control no, but at times the Hippie Dippy Marine Weatherman would have had some influence....

I assume by being an influence on those who grew up run the Navy? I remember hearing that most Hippies grew up to be Bankers, Doctors, Lawyer's, and such. I don’t know that George got that memo, but he was a good influence on some until the end.

SFN may not approve of video's, but upon hearing about the naked girls, hmm. Oh yes, why is Paganism rising? Having once followed a major religion I found that my peers were more accepting of those called pagan. It’s kind of an oddity to me, but I could never quite get it right when asked what I believed. Apparently, it’s conditional that you absolutely agree, and rarely did I meet someone who would agree to disagree. Maybe it was just me, but I feel more comfortable around people more open to differences. Paganism is generally accepted as eclectic. It’s definition not written in stone to the extent that major religions are, or for that matter to the point where followers of Heathenism, or Wicca seem to be staking out their territories within what the major religions call the pagan community.

I remember when the Geraldines would issue challenge to name the god and goddess as writ of proof. Which, I never really understood because everyone supposedly knew that aside from being sacred those names were secret. But, why is Paganism rising, most simply the access and somewhat anonymity of the internet . Yes I know the perceived anonymity is pretty much a smokescreen, but if you watch the videos those claiming to be Pagan mostly cling to eclecticism. At least that is my perception, and my belief is, that is what makes it more appealing as a label one would feel comfortable wearing. In their videos Pagan personalities are almost always esthetically pleasing in both appearance and personality, so I would be surprised if belief in Paganism wasn’t rising. 

I didn’t watch the video so I don’t know if the question was actually about the video, but when it comes to matters of religion sometimes the question only presents to create a perception that doesn’t actually exist, which in the right atmosphere would definitely lead to a challenge for data. Often that is the case, but personally I would like to think that an interest in Paganism is rising, because I perceive it as eclectic, and I like that some people that are more open to differences do actually exist as a community that I can be a part of.

🤔 so long as they don’t ask for money…

Apparently I’ve misunderstood what they meant by stationary, but still as I read about it, it is still confusing. It says ( the ether has to be remaining stationary with respect to the star as the earth moved through it. ) looking at their picture I can only assume this means what? I don’t know, because all my guesses say why would they think they could recreate a situation that seems implied by that statement?

Aether, I know it doesn’t exist. My question is about why we know it doesn’t exist. The Michelson-Morley experiment. Which actually as I read about it doesn’t really make sense to me because if c is c invariant what exactly were they looking for? But, Einstein’s c invariant was after M&M, okay that lines up. Hmm, but what other proofs were being looked for? 
 

why was Aether assumed stationary?

 If they expected it to be stationary, why were they assuming a variation of c would be found? I would assume that a stationary system would have to be non-reactive.

the reason I ask is because I was watching a video about dark matter, and dark energy and the reasons they are believed to exist and the reasons why they are called dark. So, we can see the reasons we think they do exist. Then I’m wondering, why did they think Aether existed, originally?  What were they looking for to prove Aether existed?

What would be the difference between an Aether that doesn’t  react with light and matter, accept gravitationally, and dark matter?

 Was the M&M experiment based solely on an expected variable c?

Thank you. 

On 11/4/2020 at 6:21 AM, swansont said:

Photons have no mass, and even if they did, the effect would not be due to velocity, since all photons travel at c. They have energy and momentum, owing to their frequency (or wavelength).

Okay. But I guess I’ll have to pay Dr. PhysicsA another visit because I made an assumption  that energy divided by momentum would give a mass value. My other understanding was that a photon would only have zero mass at rest. 

On 11/4/2020 at 6:21 AM, swansont said:

The effects on our observations is real, but spacetime is a coordinate system. Like latitude and longitude on a globe, the coordinate system is not flat, it is curved, because that's the proper coordinate system to use to describe the very real effects. When you look at them on a flat map (with a projection that lacks distortion), the lines are not straight. But latitude and longitude are not physical objects.

This part is also confusing. I’ll have to go back and read it again, but I thought that the mention of spacetime being a coordinate system was meant to convince me that the very real effects you mention are not real.

On 11/4/2020 at 3:26 AM, Markus Hanke said:

One of the more counterintuitive things about General Relativity is that there is no law of energy conservation for regions of spacetime with non-zero curvature. It is possible to formulate other, more general conservation laws by taking into account curvature itself, but they are not quite the same as what we traditionally understand by 'energy conservation'.

It doesn't actually go anywhere, it just changes form. What Penrose likely means (you didn't link the article) is that the end result of an accelerating expansion is a universe that expands so fast that it eventually 'rips apart' atomic structures, and even composite particles. What you end up with is just vacuum and a thermal bath of particles that is incapable of doing work.

 Markus, I’m not exactly sure how to put my understanding of GR into a few sentences. My understanding is that we live the life. We exist within the coordinate system. Plenty of people understand it better. They worked out laws of energy conservation that that I have been convinced by others work. 🙂 I’m not claiming to completely understand them, but I thought that the genius of Einstein’s general relativity was that there would be no actual need to formulate, other more general conservation laws. 

I’ll go out on a limb here and say that my understanding is that even if I see your  clock  as keeping time more slowly than mine that my understanding suggests that if each of us measures the amount of energy that our clock  is using, then should we switch places taking our respective clocks with us.

Any new measure should only vary by the norm that would be present had we not switched places. But, if I again look at your clock from my new perspective it is going to still be running slower than mine, because from my perspective you are moving, and the moving clock always presents as being slower. Hmm, I seem to have switched sides.

So now, maybe I’m getting somewhere?

The effect is real, we have to allow for it. Is this what everyone is saying? Or, is someone going to heap coals to my confusion by saying that the actual amount of energy used by each clock is dependent on its position, and my relationship to each clocks position, without bothering to explain that relativity actually adjusts the measure to the extent that should you join me our measures would be as nearly equal as two clocks in the same frame can be. 
 

And I apologize, I didn’t link the article. I wasn’t actually planning on thinking about it. But sometimes a statement stays with me, or maybe it was my thought of, “Oh well, so much for energy conservation”, linked with a desire to understand where does the energy go as each bit of matter deteriorates? If in fact expansion is linked to matter deterioration as the statement  seemed to suggest.

One thing I am sure of with near absolute certainty is that since I want it so bad, as soon as I Google it, Google is going to play dummer than dumb.

 Markus, at the risk of once again putting my ignorance on display. How does an expanding universe expand so fast that it rips atomic structures apart. I’m assuming that if that is a possible reason for the statement I remember being attributed to Penrose. Then there is a way it happens?

 I will try to find the article.  Thank you 🙂
 

found it. https://futurism.com/the-byte/physicist-other-universes-before-big-bang The statement is right after the bolded statement ( Hard Reboot ) in the article. 
 

I have no idea why the print became so small. I tried to select it to increase the font size. Apparently I’m not allowed. I assume that the link will work. Note there seem to be a lot of advertisements in the article. Annoying advertisements that suggests that the original trending version was stripped down, but if you can stand the advertisements it is the same article. 
 

Note - It doesn’t really say much more than I stated to begin with either. 

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

No, the source of gravity is energy-momentum, which includes many more things other than just mass. For example, and electromagnetic field (in otherwise empty space) would also be a source of gravity, as would be stresses and strains in the interior of a planet (e.g.).

It needs to be spacetime, not just space. It is not meaningful, in the context of gravity, to separate space from time, and vice versa.
As to what spacetime is - it is quite simply the set of all events, meaning the set of all spatial locations at all instances in time. It is thus a mathematical model.

No. When any test particle - irrespective of whether it has mass or not - is affected by gravity (and only gravity, for simplicity), then that means that its world line in spacetime is a geodesic of that spacetime. It is a purely a geometric phenomenon.

When space is expanding, that means that the separation between any two points within that space increases over time. However, locally those points remain at rest - you can attribute a relative velocity to these specific points, but not to space (that would be meaningless).

Relative motion is not a source of gravity, so it does not 'warp' spacetime.

What GR does is model the motion of test particles in the presence of sources of energy-momentum; as such, its predictions are quite physical indeed.

This is just what Newtonian gravity does, and such a model works quite well in the low-velocity, weak field domain. However, once you venture further into the strong field regime, the predictions of Newtonian gravity are no longer accurate.
And even in the everyday low energy domain - consider putting an accelerometer into free fall (drop it off a tower etc). It will read exactly zero at all times while it is falling - and zero acceleration means no force is present. And yet, the falling accelerometer is very clearly still affected by gravity. So gravity cannot be a force in the Newtonian sense. There are also deeper, more technical reasons why gravity cannot accurately be modelled by a vector field.

You cannot accelerate a massless test particle.

You have every right to be, because the way GR is generally presented does indeed make it confusing, once you give it more than just a passing glance.
Spacetime is not a mechanical medium, so curvature is not any kind of mechanical 'bending'. As mentioned above, spacetime is simply the set of all events, and the geometry of spacetime can be thought of as how these events are related to one another. If the geometry is flat, then that means the relationship between any pair of neighbouring events will be the same, regardless of where/when in spacetime you are (like on a flat sheet of paper). If spacetime is curved, then this is no longer true - the relationship between a given pair of neighbouring events depends on where that pair of events is located in space and time. That's the meaning of curvature - a change in the relationship between events. It's a geometric property, not a mechanical action.

This is analogous to the longitudinal lines on a globe - at the equator, they are spaced apart by a specific distance, but as you go north (or south), that distance will change, even though these lines are perfectly straight within the surface. That's because the relationship between points on those lines changes depending on where you are, since the surface has intrinsic curvature. Spacetime is the same, just in two more dimensions.

Okay... Thank you. The reason I asked the question is because I read one of those trending articles, well, actually I skimmed through it because I was distracted in the article there was a quote attributed to a person named Penrose. That using my bad paraphrasing went something like, "the universe is expanding, and will continue to expand until the last bit of matter deteriorates." 

I thought, well so much for energy conservation. Then I starting trying to figure out where where does all the energy go? My question was what I came up with. 

Now I see that joigus has replied so I'll stop and see what he has said, again thank you.

47 minutes ago, Janus said:

Gravity is is a "curvature" of space-time.  But this doesn't mean that anything is physically "bent".  It is a term used to express that the geometry of space-time is non-Euclidean.

Non-Euclidean geometry is often described as being like doing  plane (2 dimensional) geometry on a  3 dimensional curved surface ( like a sphere), But this is just an easy way to visualize it. Non-Euclidean geometry doesn't require an added dimension.

 

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

Would it be helpful to say "the spacetime coordinate  system" instead of just "spacetime"?

Would  people be less tempted to interpret it physically  ?

I was actually puzzling over the Janus post, and maybe yours helped to clarify, but I'm still puzzle because I thought that relativity was a physical phenomena that stated specifically that the effect is physical. One clock runs slower than another, due to gravity and or acceleration. I could possibly plot a curve, but no I wasn't speaking specific to geometry. I did use the term geodesic, but that was primarily because some like to define the path taken gravitationally between two objects as a geodesic.

If relativity predictions are as correct and as real as it has been pointed out to me time after time, and probably a few dozen times in this forum, then I would assume any physical effect that presents is real, physically.

Personally, I would prefer to believe that gravity is a force and that the dance between two massive objects as they move through space is simply point, and counter point due to that force.

I am not the one who says that relative effects are real. I am the one who is accepting that they are, and if they are then maybe if an object of zero mass gains vertual mass through acceleration then possibly space if it is in fact expanding, might do the same.

I mean no disrespect, but when you say that nothing is physically "bent", I am confused. Of course if Space doesn't warp, or expand, then I have no reason to be confused, but personally 🙂 I'm confused, maybe when you said that nothing is physically "bent" you weren't referring to space warping, and expanding. It's possible I took it out of context 🤔? Could you please clarify.

And I do tend to get wordy. Knowing so I try not to, still it happens. To that extent I apologize. 

22 minutes ago, md65536 said:

What does it mean for B to be five years in A's future? Can you explain in terms of events or coordinates?

In terms of events I was trying to paraphrase a section of the OP, but personally I don't think we can see the future, we can only assume it, so in a sense I was making an assumption based on my best understanding of the OP under the conditions it allowed. Even then, my thought was wrong because I assumed angular positions possibly less than or possibly greater than 180 degrees.

35 minutes ago, md65536 said:

Can you explain in terms of events or coordinates?

I assume, not even if my life depended on it. However, if there is an emoji for it I can grovel. 🙂

Personally, I think we can only assume past, present, and future.

This is a great thread, but some of the post are more confusing than the OP, no offense intended Moontanman.🙂

On 10/31/2020 at 12:19 PM, Janus said:

When you arrive at point C, you will see the same light coming from both stars as someone who never moved from point C; Light that left both stars 5 yrs ago.  You see both stars as they were 5 yrs ago.  

 

I should have read the whole thread first.

On 10/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, Moontanman said:

During this grueling time of self quarantining I've been trying to practice a little mental gymnastics everyday and I think I've come up with a small paradox. Well for me anyway. 

Let's say we have two stars 10 light years apart, star A and B, you have a space ship with 'magical technology" that allows you travel 5 light years in an instant. So you get in your space ship at Star A instantly you are 5 LYs from both stars, I'll call that point C, looking back at star A you see light that is 5 years in star A's past but the light from star B is 5 years in star A's future. The reverse would also be true. Star B's light you see is 5 years in star B's past but still in 5 years in star A's future so you would be 5 years in both star's past and future... right? 

Am I wrong or right or neither? 

Crap I should have put this in speculations... 

Okay I haven't actually read the whole thread because I got caught up in trying to understand the post as presented. This is the confusing part.

On 10/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, Moontanman said:

I'll call that point C, looking back at star A you see light that is 5 years in star A's past but the light from star B is 5 years in star A's future.

If at point C you are 5 years in star A's past and you are presumably between Point A and point B it is seemingly a paradox. But if you are seeing light five ly's in A's past and B is five years in A's future it seems more like an equal radius than a paradox. 

But, you start of by saying

On 10/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, Moontanman said:

Let's say we have two stars 10 light years apart, star A and B

Then you say

On 10/31/2020 at 11:19 AM, Moontanman said:

the light from star B is 5 years in star A's future

Is it 10 light years, or five? Hmm, seems more like a thought exercise, than a paradox... Personally, this depth of thought has placed me in danger of drowning in possibilities. So, I'm gonna stop, take a nap, then come back and read the whole thread and see if there is anything that explains my confusion. 🤔😊 

Didn't even get the chance to take a nap, but now I assume that any light I observed from point C is technically five light years distant from point A. But that's another discussion. Or, is it. Might be back to the equal radius thought?

The gravitational effect between two objects of mass seems apparent. Even uncomplicated until you start to think about it in detail, but gravity is said to warp Space which I assume can be attributed to mass. The assumption being that the effect is an attribute of mass.

Generally there is no clear explanation of what Space is. It's this, it's that, know one really knows, yet it expands and warps.

When a photon is affected by gravity we can say that it's velocity gives it just enough mass to be gravitationally effected.

If Space is expanding it could be said that it has velocity. My understanding of term accuracy becomes convoluted at times, but Space is said to be expanding at an increasing rate, so I think velocity is the correct term.

Is this velocity of Space, what allows gravitational warping of Space, much like a photon is effected because it has velocity, and wouldn't this account for most, if not all of the matter that is said to be missing in the universe?

Another thought, is that the photon is simply following a geodesic of curved space but that simply brings us back to why space warps without an explanation.

On 9/25/2020 at 6:24 AM, swansont said:

You should check out Poe's law, and ponder its application here. 

Plus, I am well-known to have no sense of humor.

Okay this made me laugh. Actually, it is the second thing written by swansont that I have read today that made my laugh. The first thing was his article on how a question about when a decade ends was such a terrible question. Then I remembered that it was swansont's blog, and it is well known that he has no sense of humor, so I immediately started trying to remember which of my meds I had recently taken... I believe this is where according to Poe's Law I'm supposed to put the little side ways smiley face. The problem is I can't remember exactly how to make the side ways smiley face so I'm hoping this one will do. 😂  Note, I am only joking about the frantic meds search...🤔🧐😂

19 hours ago, joigus said:

Religion is not "what makes you feel good about yourself." I don't remember a single instance in my life when the religious principles that they foisted upon me made me feel the least good about myself. Quite the contrary. In the Christian religion in particular, it's quite ironic: God made the universe with you in mind, but you are constantly reminded that you are worthless.

This case is completely different. Sex and sexual inclinations are not taught. Religion is.

If you go back to what I said, it's really "people who want to get out of it need help and advice with...", rather than what you seem to imply.

Forceful mutilation, mind programming to instill fear, hate, guilt, immediate obedience without question to unchecked-by-objective-observers religious authorities, who in many cases are only answerable to their own religious authorities. Arranged marriages for underage girls, obligation to kill others and die if necessary to protect or advance your own religion, persecution of other faiths --in some cases--. Social isolation or even imprisonment or severe physical punishment if you don't abide by the rules. Keeping children from being aware of similar circumstances in other religions, so that they more easily assume their condition as "natural" or inevitable. There are possibly hundreds more reasons. None of us comes out looking pretty here, no matter what our culture is.

All of this carefully installed in children's minds year after year.

As I said, psychological abuse beyond any doubt.

15 minutes ago, joigus said:

This is just a value judgement.

I could say you're preaching with as much reason as you can say I am. I could say you are unconvincing. I could say you are not rigorous. Those would be value judgments, exactly as yours.

Instead, what I will say is that you're the first person I know that can judge enthusiasm by looking at typed words. Nothing even remotely close to enthusiasm what I feel discussing this topic.

And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped. The possibility or the arguable necessity of helping other people shouldn't scare you, as long as you think rationally. It does not surprise me at all that someone who is particularly lenient with faith-based religion declares fear. Faith-based religion lives on fear.

What's scary is that many atheists have to live in fear or be extremely vulnerable because nobody will help them in their social milieu. That's scary.

Every bolded word is of your own doing. I simply read them and assumed that they were bolded with intent. I especially like this part

30 minutes ago, joigus said:

And, please, don't be scared by me saying that certain people should be helped.

Where you say please don't be, then embolden the word scared. Though it is annoying that you would imply that my being afraid was inspired by your desire to help certain people. My actual fear is that you might be in a position to teach, and it is based on my belief of religious freedom, and the realities that wrote it into the Constitution. From my perspective the sense of having to keep my mouth shut in order to belong is not limited to acceptance within a religious order. I can understand ones heart being filled with anger and hatred, but nothing justifies it being taught, and when you write and embolden specific words it does come across that your intent is to teach those who don't know any better, that they are wrong.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That was Spock. 🖖

You are right initially it was Spock, but I think Data was programmed to personify Spock, and it seems I remember Data with a slight tilt of the head, with an expression of perfect wonder, saying; "fascinating!"

However, I could be wrong. 🤔🧐

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Religious people preach, not atheists. Atheists argue --or they should. Atheists call on theists to prove their point, and theists always fail. There is a whole mind, intention, and tradition of difference.

You were preaching friend with so much enthusiasm that it presented with every fear you spoke of. I don't mean to go all Star Trek Data on you but it was, fascinating. A perfect example of how anti-theism to extreme becomes the example most perfect of religion gone bad. It was scary, because I began to feel the fears you spoke of as if your intent was to teach by example. It was so, so real, and so unexpected.

It is amazing if you cannot see what I speak of in your own arguments, and recognize that you were indeed preaching, using with absolute perfection every skill that most preachers can only imagine they own.

Though I would imagine that in this forum it could be argued that nothing is absolute, and that the closest thing to perfection in science that can be achieved can only be presented to the smallest degree of uncertainty.