pwagen

Someone also suggested how can you be certain its the centre of the earth, but it you were to examine core samples taken from the earth ,you can see the upper most layers are less compacted than the deepest layers because gravity is pulling continually pulling downwards compacting the deepest layers as the weight of the upper layers pushes down on them.

The other option would be that gravity "pulls" towards somewhere that is not the center of Earth (or rather, Earth's center of gravity). Are you suggesting that?

 

So I am suggesting if Gravity does not really depend on the mass or size of the object then it must be dependant on the density of the object, the density of the inner core must be incredibly superior to anything we have seen to date.

Do you have any reason to believe the pull of gravity is not dependent on mass? If so, what would show that to be the case? Also, if gravity depends on the density of the core, how did the core get there in the first place?

 

I don't believe that this gravitational matter needs to be of the same composition for every planet ,moon ,star

Atoms, yes.

 

,because it would be silly to think every other planet etc. share the same composition as the earth, but it is probable that they formed in a similar manner

and have at their centre a hugely dense mass producing a similar gravitational attraction and this would be proportional to the size of the object, so Isaac's mathematically equations still apply.

Again, is the more compact core a result of gravity, or the cause of it?

Don't change for other people (as the poll would indicate). Change for your own sake.

 

You want to start giving logical answers? Read up on the science. Want to stop behaving like a 10 year old? Read up on social interactions and how to behave towards other people, then practice it. Before you post something, ask yourself "how old does this make me sound?", then change the post accordingly.

 

When in doubt whether something will make you sound like a child, don't post it.

Fine, so it's not 7/7 then?

Just to clarify, are you talking about the fruit or the plant? Because I can't see how the fruit can, for example, maintain temperature without the plant.

It seems you're comparing single cells to multi-cellular structures. If you're comparing the strawberry to anything, surely it would have to be the testicle? Neither can stay alive on its own, both contain something which is used for reproduction (sperm/seeds).

 

Of course that cell is alive.

...

So are all the cells in a testicle.

All of them? Again, for how long? Without being well versed in the process of cell death, I would guess the cells in the testicles die off a long time before the sperms do, in which case the sperm can still be used for reproduction even though the container they came from is dead.

 

Also, I think we need to make a distinction between the bigger and the smaller in this case. Sure, you can claim something "big" (such as the strawberry or the chopped off testicle) is alive due to it having live cells still. But then, a decomposing corpse is also alive, since it has bacteria and stuff like that in it.

If you plant a reasonably fresh strawberry, it will grow new plants.

It can't be dead if it does that.

If you amputate a testicle, and extract sperm from it within half a day or so, which is then used to impregnate a woman, was the testicle ever alive?

 

I have no problem with the view of it having been part of a living organism. But I can't bring myself to seeing either the testicle or the strawberry as something with a life of its own.

As soon as you remove it? If you decapitate someone Does the head not live for a short while after?

Even if it did, I don't think it would matter. It can't sustain itself without a host. So while the head, in this case, is a part of a living thing, and "starts to die" if removed, I'd still argue that it's wrong to say it's alive, in itself. Same with the strawberry. While it's a part of a living thing, it's not alive in itself. Thus it won't die when picked.

 

However, due to the general grey area that is the definition of life, I'm sure one can argue that it's alive due to there being live cells in it. So then, is the strawberry alive simply because there are live cells in it? Does it then die when all cell activity has ceased? I personally don't agree with that line of reasoning, but I can see how one could argue for it.

 

As for the head being alive after being decapitated, it's a debated subject.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-brain-myths6.htm

But the Strawberry's cells divide and require constant energy to continue devideing, is that not the very most basic definition of life?

It might very well be. However, another part of the definition of life is to be able to sustain biological functions on your own. This is the reason most definitions say a virus is no alive, since it's dependant on a host to function. Once, again, if you remove the strawberry from its host body (the plant), it dies. Thus, it fails that aspect of being alive.

I would argue the strawberry in itself isn't alive, and never was. The plant is, but the strawberry is just a peripheral.

Bignose touched on it above;

What predictions can your theory make, that would be more accurate than the predictions made by relativity?

Firstly, it's not correct to speak of a purpose. There's no underlying purpose or goal of the universe.

 

Secondly, you say the mass of a star creates the gravity. I'm sure that's not an accurate description to physicists, but let's go with that anyway. If that's the case, can you think of a reason gravity should disperse when the star collapses? After all, the mass is still there.

You're trying to change the subject. You said that believers who see their faith fail them will stop believe in that faith. I disagreed. You later said the complete opposite, that the believers who see their faith fail them will still believe. Both examples quoted above. I asked for clarification.

 

Which is it?

 

pwagen tell me. For those that it works what exactly is it they do to keep faith in god?

The appearance of a working belief. That can't be a serious question.

It is a logical constraint that seems built into logic itself or at least how our brain is built.

 

For to work logically for the believer the God need by logic necessity to be real and alive

and supernatural and creator of the world and maybe some other features that by tradition

has become known as something all real gods have.

Sure. The way that I read this, and you might stop me right here if this isn't what you mean, is that for a believer to logically believe in a god, it needs to be real, and provide real evidence of its existence. If the god does not provide such evidence, the believer will realize this and change his or her view of the world. Is this interpretation correct? This interpretation seems strengthened by the following quote:

 

My current take is that even totally made up gods

needs to be alive and real and supernatural for to be effective

or else the believer turn to these other gods that have those features.

So again, are you saying that if a believer does not receive adequate evidence, they stop believing in the god they subscribed to?

 

If so, I disagree. In itself, what you're saying makes sense. After all, if you think all cars are red, and are shown a blue car, you would realize you've made a mistake and change your view of cars. However, experience tells us that this isn't what happens, in general.

 

I've given an example above, where people pray for their god to heal X, and them still believing (but finding excuses for) the same god. Another example could be a congregation praying for their god to heal "aunt Mathilda, who's dying from cancer". Prayer is an alleged working practice in Christianity. However, if the prayer fails and Mathilda dies, do the believers stop believing, since the god does not provide evidence of its existence?

 

Further, you seem to be saying the complete opposite of what you've already said:

 

Even if a god fail the believer still trust it to be real and supernatural and to really exist.

Here, can you really be saying anything other than that a believer would still believe even though they receive no evidence?

 

So, in short:

Are you saying that a believer would lose their faith if, for example, their prayers don't work or they are shown certain errors in their scriptures? Basically, when their god fails them.

 

Do you say the complete opposite when you say a believer still trusts it to be real, even though the god fails them?

This quote:

 

I don't think you are right. When a god fail to heal or do the miracle

that the believer expect then they try to find some explanation to the failure

but they still believe as I wrote.

 

"My current take is that even totally made up gods

needs to be alive and real and supernatural for to be effective

or else the believer turn to these other gods that have those features."

...is in direct conflict with this quote, which follows it:

 

 

Even if a god fail the believer still trust it to be real and supernatural and to really exist.

 

 

They have such failures each Sunday but does not stop believing that their god exists

and are real and supernatural and sometimes do what they expect of God. They list such

successes all the time and the failures they try to not pay too much attention to so

The first quote seems to say that when a believer experiences a failed miracle (or whatever), they turn to other explanations. The second quote says that when a believer experiences this, they still believe in their diety.

 

Which is it? If I'm misinterpreting you, maybe consider K.I.S.S. in regards to language.

 

Edit: Fixed quote tags.

My current take is that even totally made up gods

needs to be alive and real and supernatural for to be effective

or else the believer turn to these other gods that have those features.

This is false. There are a myriad of different gods which obviously don't work as prescribed, yet that won't stop people from believing in them.

 

An example would be"prayer heals X". When prayer fails to heal X, believers don't stop believing. Instead, they come up with silly excuses like "God works in mysterious ways" or "you didn't pray hard enough". Very rarely, the believer admits there's nothing there, and change their belief.

The supernatural has about as big an effect on philosophy as homeopathy has on medicine.

this is his explanation,

I'll call Stockholm.

Here's something a little more credible a close-up photo of a Apollo 20

patch from the mission which obviously cannot be easily faked,

a custom made patch?

Funny how the names on the patch in the image don't match Rutledge's crew, but actually match one of the crew that was considered for the mission, had it actually happened. In fact, I found an even better patch for you:

 

http://magonia.haaan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/apollo20patch.jpg

 

This is the one shown in the video, and it's not real.

 

Here's the translation of the Latin encrytion on the patch

How come there is no Latin inscription on the other mission patches?

 

Rutledge alone released this information, it would take a lot of money a number of people to fake that Apollo footage.

No, people do this on a daily basis. The videos were released in 2007, so anyone with enough spare time could easily fake it.

 

Remote viewers confirm Rutledge's story

Now you're just taking the piss.

I'll be the one laughing a couple years from now when I win the Nobel prize

How do you expect to win the Nobel prize when you refuse to explain your theory? Do you think the committee will take your word for it?

Am I missing something, or is there no sketch?

I bet that makes him a very unbiased source for a hoax.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LuisGomez111/Apollo_20

http://www.galaxiki.org/web/main/_blog/all/the-apollo-20-alien-spaceship-hoax.shtml

You should have checked the spam link then!

 

I can't be sure, but my guess is New Zealand. Partly because of looks, partly because the spammer's name, which leads me to think of the Great Barrier Reef.

A lot of persecuted scientists turned out to be right because they were right. They were not right because they were persecuted. We've had that argument before, it's never been evidence of anything.

 

So you have no math to back up your claim, and refuse to explain it in detail? Frankly, I wonder why you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.

I will in the future give a detailed version of my time differentiation modulation and the black hole mechanics involved .

I haven't been able to watch the video, but could you do what you say here?

Apollo 20 was cancelled. Why don't you start researching your nonsense Youtube clips before posting them?