Jump to content

Eric 5

Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Eric 5

  • Rank
  1. Alright, I have seen examples like this given to explain the distortion of spacetime. In all examples with the trampoline or stretched rubber what is required is gravity and a material that has it's edges secured so they will not move. Also in these examples an object is actually in contact with some material. Spacetime has no scientific data that states that it is a physical thing existing in a location. On and on the dialogue goes regarding spacetime as though this thing actually exists, yet no one has ever discribed spacetime as a physical thing. Spacetime is a mathematical constr
  2. Eric 5

    Big Bang

    A stretching of what? Can you give more data on what you want to communicate.
  3. I would like to hear what you have been writting on time. I do not think time is a physical thing. I say that the concept of time is only a manifestation of particles moving in space. Also, when it comes to the idea of dimensions. Do you think that dimensions are a real physical things?
  4. You want to clear this up and understand this time dilation/lenght contraction stuff? Answer these questions: Is time a physical energy? If you say that it is, please provide scientific evidence or a definition. In this lenght contaction idea, can you find any reference that states that the object actually contracts? You have two objects, one is made of iron, the other is made of foam padding. Both objects are traveling at near the speed of light. Both we are told contract at to the same lenght. It takes more energy to contract iron then foam, yet both contract the same
  5. Do clocks meaure a physical influence or energy that is motivating the clock? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again. What do clocks measure? Look at how a clock works. Do clocks actually measure some energy called time? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged SWANSONT. Please provide scientific evidence of the mechanical workings of a clock that shows clocks measure some external energy or influence? This talk of time being some type of thing is not based in science. Look at the references concerning clocks or time and you will see that time is n
  6. Just to be clear. When you say we see only three dimensions, do you mean that light is being reflected off these dimensions so that the light percieving organs (known as eyes) can "see" dimensions? What do you mean see? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is all about a mathmatical model. Not physical reality. Nothing in what you said describes a real physical thing. I only point this out so no one thinks that dimensions are a real physical entity. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged not real things. Just imagination. Merged post follows: C
  7. I am going to help you out here swansont. What asprung means by "physical" is what is defined in any standard dictionary. Correct me if I am wrong, asprung. Physical means physical as defined by any dictionary. Swansont, are you going to take the stand that there is a physical contraction? YES/NO.
  8. "If life can exist distinct from atoms, as you propose, how do we detect this atom-free life form...do i feel a sense of deja vu...going round in circles?" - StringJunky Maybe life is a force or energy that is not visible, makes no sound, has no taste, has no solidity. It is different then physical universe objects and energy. It is possible that life is something that does not need a vessel or form to be alive. Life could be that thing that is just that, life. I am happy to see that you have this purely scientific viewpoint. I hope that you keep this viewpoint at all times.
  9. Thank you for your input. That video is a lesson in chemistry and the physics of these chemicals. Nothing about life. The whole video is based on the growth and reactions of vesicles. Vesicles are not living things. Go ahead and check it out. Vesicles are not living things, so the whole video has nothing to do with the beginning of life. Sorry, nice try. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Tell me what the difference is. You want to say life might be comprised of atoms. 100% atoms? 90% atoms and 10% something else? Please explain what you mean
  10. I am just saying that there is no science that states atoms or groups of atoms become alive. Science has not given the chemical formula for life. I say that life is not made of atoms. Some on this thread are convinced that life is made of atoms. My claim is backed up by lack of scientific evidence that life is a chemical composition. There is no science that gives validity to the idea that life is made of chemicals. Those that believe that life is some type of atomic structure would just have to provide scientific evidence that backs up that claim. My statement that life i
  11. We are discussing atoms becoming alive. Just show the science. What kind of science is this? You say life is made of atoms. What is the chemical formula of life. Please just give the science. COME ON MAN! Just keep this simple. Where is the science? According to that logic everything in this universe is alive. Look, just show the chemical formula of life and stop assuming. If you say life is made of atoms and this is a science forum then where is the science that backs up your claim? This is so simple. Why has no one just provided the science? Have
  12. Where is the scientific evidence that empirically gives the chemical formula that life is made of just atoms? Where is the science? I say life is not made of atoms because there is no science to be found that backs up your assertion that life is 100% atomic. I say that life is not made of atoms due to lack of evidence. You say that life is made of pure atoms, so the burden of proof is on you. Ignoring the question is a cop out. Just prove your case with science and do not take some childish “I will ignore you” approach. Just give your evidence. Prove your case and show the chemic
  13. Wow! Someone actually asked me what I think on this subject. Here is the point that I am trying to make, suppose that I do not have any idea what life is. Suppose that I am not a believer (as in those who believe that there is a God in the sky). Suppose that I have found that everything up to this point can be described by 100% science. Now with all that in mind, what is the scientific evidence that states life is a bunch of atoms? If science knows the exact operation of how atoms become alive then they could recreate life at will. Science cannot do this and science does not understand w
  14. Not reasonable? This is science. Science is exact. If you think that life is a bunch if atoms then just tell me where you got this idea. Did you make it up? Or is it a scientific fact? Fact or opinion? Which is it? Are you serious? You are saying that there is no universal definition of life. WOW! So what are the definitions of life in all the standard scientific dictionaries, just made up private definitions? There are standard universal definitions of life. If life is a bunch of atoms show the scientific evidence or at least where you are getti
  • 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.