Jump to content

# Eric 5

Senior Members

162

• Baryon

10

1. ## Apparent Inconsistency in General Relativity

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 construct. No mention anywhere that spacetime is a physical thing. Everyone who speaks of it in terms of being a thing that exists in a location has not actually looked to see if this thing is an actual entity. Anyone willing to do some research and find out for yourself?
2. ## Big Bang

A stretching of what? Can you give more data on what you want to communicate.
3. ## Multiple dimensions of time

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. ## Time Dilation

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. How is this possible? What forces are at worK? If you say that the objects APPEAR to contract you would be correct according to Einstein and S.R. They appear to contract, but acctually do not contract. There is no science that explains the forces that act on an object to contract it during high speed. Force is not mentioned. The objects do not actually contract. Just think about it, if an object were contracted by some force, what is the force that brings it back to it original lenght? And why is this force never mentioned?
5. ## Constant Time

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 not a physical thing that exists as some form of enegy that can influence a machine such as a clock.
6. ## why is time called 4th dimension?

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: Consecutive posts merged BOB. Is time a physical thing as defined by physics or any science?
7. ## length contraction and the space twins

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. ## Ghost Hunters International

"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. You may be a breath of fresh air when it comes to disscusing science. We will see. Alright, so what are the options here concerning this topic? I see two basic paths to take here in an effort to figure this out, either life is made from atoms or it is not. Once this has been discerned then we can go from there. You say that a living system has never been discovered existing separately from atoms. You are right. A living system is a collection of atoms that are in a form that allow life to interact with the physical universe. You see living systems are made of atoms, but when life is no longer a part of that system, then that system is no longer alive yet still remains a collection of atoms. A dead body is a colection of atoms. Just to set the record straight, I am not a believer in any faith based religion. I say that atoms are not alive. I say grouping atoms together do not make them become alive. Lets say that I do not know exactly what life is. I am interested in finding out so I have to collect as much data on this topic and then throw out what does not fit or apply. Even if I do not know the answer right now, I may get a bit closer once the collection of data is sifted through to get rid of false, or inapplicable data. As it stands right now, atoms are not living things, and if atoms were living things the question would still be, what makes the atom alive. So, in our discussion we need to come to some agreement. Since we have not established what makes life or what life is, then lets see if we can agree on what life is not. I will say that atoms no matter the amount or configuration are not alive or will ever become alive and aware. Eventually if we throw out what life isnt we may end up with what life is. The collection of atoms is not life since life is not something that added or constructed. There are life forms, but the form is not life. It would be possible to make something such as a robot to act like a living thing, go through all the motions and even give this robot artificial intelligence. This robot may have all of the right moves and responses to act as though it is alive, but it is not alive. I think that you should not rely on the forms that are alive and put your attention on what is it that animates or is part of this form that gives it life. I have no beliefs. One last thing. You go by StringJunky, does that mean you have an interest in string theory? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged What kind of attitude is this? I do not agree with your point of view so there is no need for discussion? That is not science. Science does not move forward through agreement to one viewpoint, and no looking or thinking of other viewpoints. What evidence? Just show me a scientific explaination or definition that is evidence that life is made of atoms. No evidence has been given, only assumptions, or opinions. I have done research on this topic and I found that science has not come out and said that life is an atomic structure. You can resolve this debate by giving evidence of some sort that science says or agrees that life is made of atoms. A website, a definition, something. I am sure that you think that you are right in your assertion, great. The problem is that I am looking for what science says about this matter and not just what one person thinks. You seem to think that life is some form of atoms, fine, what science backs this up? Is there any? So am I. This attitude that you have is the same attitude I have. Please just give one scientific definition, experiment, explaination that gives compelling evidence that life is what you think it is. Use science to prove your point. Do not make assumptions and be quick to judgment. I have raised some questions that cast a doubt on this "life is atomic idea". Can you provide any science that states life is some configuration of atoms? I would like to see it.

No.
10. ## Ghost Hunters International

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. No. You're making the claim here, and since lack of evidence is not evidence by itself, you are the one with the burden of proof. Good luck. Alright, lets get back on track here. I say that life is not an atomic structure. I say that all living things posses something else that separates the living from the non living. I will agree that all of the living things that we percieve have some form that is made of some atomic structure. This atomic structure is not the source of life or life itself. There is the structure and that thing or energy that animates that structure. Now, do you think that life is a 100% atomic structure? Simply put, I am stating that life is not a particle. Those that disagree with me say that a group of atoms make life. Do you think that life is some percentage of an atomic structure? The way I see this debate is either life is made of some percentage of atoms or it is not. Those are the two sides. Please correct me if I am wrong. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged So what is your point? Are you saying that atoms are alive? You gave an example of removing atoms from a life form would eventually terminate that life form. Those atoms that you removed do they die? What happens when you remove atoms from something that is non living? Does it die? What happens when you add atoms to non living things? Do they become alive? Adding more atoms to a living thing, does that make it more alive? You see you have to show some connection between the atom and life. Do you have any data that shows that atoms are necessary to have life and the difference between those things that are composed of atoms that are non living and those things that are alive and have a form of some sort. Are atoms essential to have life? Do atoms give life? What do atoms have to do with life? That is my question.
11. ## Ghost Hunters International

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 is NOT made of atoms is proven by the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary. Those who claim that life is an atomic structure DO have to provide proof that life is an atomic structure or that atoms have the ability to become alive. So, yes you do need to prove your case. Why not just prove your point instead of avoiding the question. I would like to point out that no one has provided any evidence that life is an atomic structure, despite my many requests for this evidence. Is there anyone here who that belives life is made of atoms show any proof of this? It is time to put up some data that proves life is an atomic structure. As it stands right now I have not been shown that I am wrong.
12. ## Ghost Hunters International

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 you noticed that no one has provided any scientific evidence that life is made of atoms? So what started this cellular respiration? What causes a group of atoms to decide that in order to survive it must have cellular respiration? There is a group of atoms and then through some supernatural phenomenon it becomes necessary for this group of atoms to exhibit and depend on cellular respiration. Yes living systems exhibit cellular respiration. What is the science behind this? What would cause a group of atoms to construct some system of interacting with O2, yet some groups of atoms do not make this step? What is the force of energy that gives the impulse to a group of atoms to make them dependent on cellular respiration? Why would a group of atoms which are not dependent on respiration decide to now be dependent upon respiration? Seems a bit far fetch as far as science is concerned. So according to your logic, a group of non living atoms decide that they need to have respiration in order to live, yet they were not alive before this decision. This is a science forum. I have asked for the science to provide evidence that life is made of atoms. No one has provided empirical scientific evidence. You and others are making this more complicated then need be. Just show the evidence. Where is your proof? I raise some simple questions and you find it Herculean. You find this to be hard and too big to handle because you are having a hard time propping up your belief that life is made of atoms. Yet you could make this so simple by providing scientific evidence. Your lack of evidence strengthens my case. I ask for scientific evidence and none is given. Just look at how this strengthens my case. I say that there is no scientific evidence that says atoms or a group of atoms are alive, no one has provided any evidence, yet they think that by ignoring me or saying that I am being Herculean is some kind of proof that they are right. REALLY! Where is the science? Why the lack of science? You say life is made of atoms, where does science say this? You are going to have to realize that you know that there is no science to back up your claims. You might as well just admit it and say that your idea that life is made of atoms is based on faith. FAITH: A belief in something as true without having complete evidence or understanding. Show the evidence or understanding.
13. ## Ghost Hunters International

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 chemical formula of life. Show the observation that life has been recreated in the lab. Stop avoiding the obvious and just prove your case. Where is the science that backs up your claim? You say life is made of atoms. What atoms? How many? In what ratio? COME ON! State your case with science. You say that you are going to be unresponsive unless I come up with evidence to the contray. The evidence is right in front of your face. There is no science that provides evidence that life is made of 100% atoms. I say life is not made of atoms because there is no science to prove this. You say that life is made of atoms. Where is your proof? Go ahead, prove me wrong. Put my credibility into question. As it stands right now you need to prove your case. My viewpoint is proven by lack of evidence. Prove me wrong, be scientific and show the chemical formula for life. Your attitude that ignoring me is childish and unscientific. Man up and just prove your point, don’t runaway and hope that your faith in spontaneous life from atoms is true. Your current actions and attitude do not help your case. Blow me out of the water and provide the science. I have stated before that I will drop this topic if anyone can just do their research and provide evidence that life is made of atoms. Atoms make matter, matter is not life. Just follow the rules of the forum and provide science that backs up your claims. I have asked many people on this "science" forum to back up their claims that time is a physical thing, that space is a physical thing and now life is a physical thing. There HAS NOT been one shred of science given to back up these claims. I have not taken some fantastic, unscientific viewpoint here in my claim that space, time and life are not physical things. Science has no reference or definition that states how these things are made of atoms or some type of E/M wave. I am on the side of science and NOT one person has proved me wrong, NOT ONE! If you want to say that I am wrong about this life thing then just provide the science. So far it seems as though when it comes to the basics of all science and physics such as: What is time? What is space? What is life? Those people who engage me in these topics give their OPINIONS and BELIEFS, not science. They have some faith that what they think is true is actual science. Wrong! Keep this simple. Provide science. Here is the observable train of thought used by those who engage me on the basics of science. They do not provide any science to prove their point. If we just look at this topic of life you can see that no one has provided the science that I have asked for. There is the opinion that life is made of atoms but where is the science? WHERE IS THE SCIENCE THAT BACKS UP YOUR STATEMENT? Science. Science. Science. Is that asking too much? Those who engage me on the above topics use faith and belief to try and prove their point. Why not show how I am wrong and provide scientific evidence? TO HAVE FAITH: The obedience to, acceptance of or belief in something as true WITHOUT HAVING COMPLETE EVIDENCE; UNDERSTANDING OF, or trust in something. So you say that life is made of 100% atoms. Where is the complete evidence? What is your understanding? Just explain your point of view. Start with maybe the type of atoms involved. Then maybe the amount. Then maybe the combination. Can you provide any of this? Why all this run around on a science forum? Who will take the challenge and prove their case and show that my assertion that life is not made of atoms is wrong? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Living systems are made out of atoms, so you say. Cars are made out of atoms and are not alive. Te car is made of non living atoms. Gather a bunch of these atoms and what you have is a non living structure. What is your point? You just said that if you put atoms together you get a non living structure. JUST GIVE THE SCIENTIFIC CHEMICAL FORMULA OF LIFE. WRONG! A thermostat does is not aware of its environment. A thermostat is a man made machine. A thermostat does not decide or perform an activity in order to better its survival. Those structures that have the added ingredient of life will perform actions to help them in survival. A living thing performs actions because it is in someway aware of what is a survival action and where non survival or pain is. Not only that but thermostats do not die.
14. ## Ghost Hunters International

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 what makes life. So life is a mystery or unsolved question as far as science is concerned, so anyone who states that life is a bunch of atoms is not working from the viewpoint of science. So my questioning of anyone regarding this topic is not to invalidate them but to get them to think. What is life? That is the question. If it is a bunch of atoms then where is the evidence and the experiments that show man can create life from 100% atoms. That’s all. I just want to have a discussion on this topic yet I find that those who think life is a bunch of atoms cannot provide any scientific evidence. Lets just talk, look at this question anew. I say that there has to be something other then just pure atoms that make life, I was hoping that someone here would be willing to discuss this topic with an open mind. There has to be some kind of energy or force or whatever you want to call it that makes life or is life. Forget all that religious stuff. Can you state with confidence that life is made of a group of atoms?. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged These are good questions. The whole point here is that I may not know what life is. But scientifically speaking, life is not a bunch of atoms. Yes there are many forms of matter that exhibit life. But those forms remain the same atomically whether they are dead or alive. There is no difference. Look, you guys keep talking of computers to make some connection that it has something to do with atoms becoming alive. There are many different rocks, glass, cars, planes, boats, guns, ink, on and on. Computers are made from matter and energy. Computers are not alive. The construction of computers has no bearing on how atoms become alive. Look at this question from a scientific viewpoint. Is one atom alive? Y/N If yes then where is the evidence? If no then are two atoms alive? Is there a magic number of atoms to make the whole group alive? Y/N If two or more atoms have the ability to become alive then, is there any evidence of this? Y/N If yes, then where is it? If no, then what data are you working from in order to state that life is made of atoms? This is so easy to boil down. Is life 100% atoms? Y/N If yes then where is then scientific explanation? If no, then lets look into this further? This is what I am looking to do, look a bit further. It has been said through out the ages by many philosophers that man is composed of body, mind and spirit. Can we currently describe what a body is? Y/N. I say yes. Can we currently describe what a mind is? Y/N. I say that science, philosophy, the humanities are still unsure. This area needs more research. Can we currently describe what a spirit is? Y/N. HA, HA. This topic is very undefined as far as todays science or religion is concerned. Look there either is a soul, spirt, or not. You would think that if there was a soul we would know all about it or at least know that it exists, right? Well apparently we can not say that there is a soul. Yet we cannot rule out the fact that there is something in this universe that provides life or is life, that divides the non living from the living. It cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that there could be a something that we could call a soul or spirit. This brings us to the question: Is life 100% atoms or is there more to this? I say that there is more. What that more is, is what I would like to discuss. Just take a look at the laws of motion. These laws have no exception. A body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. Take your right hand and decide to place it on a flat surface. Keep your right hand on the surface and hold it still. Once you have decided that you have kept your hand still, move your right hand off the flat surface. Now I will ask you, what moved your hand (that mass)? You might say that it was electro-chemical reactions in your brain. What started these electro-chemical reactions? You see, there was a moment in time before you decided to move your hand. That right hand was located in a particular position in space. Then you decided to move that mass. Did chemicals, atoms decide to move the right hand? When your right hand is resting on the flat surface and you have decided that it is at rest (still) then you moved that right hand, that mass was at rest and then it was in motion. A body at rest will remain at rest until acted upon by an outside force. What is this outside force? Chemicals? Atoms? Fine, If that is what you think then what moved those atoms or chemicals? What gave the impetus to initiate the motion of these atoms, electrons? Did the atoms, electrons decide to move? All matter and energy in this physical universe are at effect. There is no incident of any piece of matter or energy deciding to go against the laws of nature. All matter and energy change course or existing state through an influence by an outside force. On the moving of the right hand example, go ahead and work out how that hand moved. If you end up with some concept that this atom, chemical, electron did such and such, well go one step further and figure out what initiated this activity. Yes the human body has a nervous system, this system is a path way for electrical impulses to travel. This system does not initiate electrical impulses. The brain is part of this system, just flesh, just atoms and electrons. What is the initial impulse that starts the whole action of the motion of a right hand that was at rest? This gets at the heart of what is life. What do you think? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have been referred to this game before. Here I go again. We can agree that we are having a discussion on life and what makes life. This game has no connection or provides any logical evidence of how life got started or what makes life. First, life came before this game, the game was created by life in a mathematical form as a game, it is not scientific evidence of how life got started or what life is. Second, this game already starts out with blocks that are alive. The game already has life in it. It does not start out with complete non-living blocks and then show how these blocks become alive. This is just a game and is not used as evidence to support how life got started or what life is. The game is not alive, it is mathematical entertainment. All actions of this game have been predetermined by man. The game does not decide to do anything nor does it have any concept of what it is doing. I could go on and on about this game, but the last time I did on another forum someone got offended and I was banned for three days. I can only hope that you are better than that. I have already earned an infraction on this forum for the communication I have stated regarding my thoughts on this topic. Hey, if you can’t win an argument or provide scientific evidence why not use infractions and threats to prove your point. This of course is not aimed at you, I just thought that it was a bit unjust.
15. ## Ghost Hunters International

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 getting this idea. Can you logically describe how atoms become alive. Just provide that and then we can go from there. You telling me that a bunch of atoms become alive is not scientific evidence. You say atoms can become alive, great, so how did you come to this conclusion? No, I am not looking for an example. Where is the science? You say it is so. Is that fact or opinion? FACT? If so then please provide evidence. OPINION? I really do not mean to be rude here, but you do not know what you are saying. In fact you have shown that you are either truly ignorant or are careless with your statements. THERE IS AN EXACT FORMULA TO MAKE A WORKING COMPUTER. Man makes computers everyday. Man knows exactly how to make a computer. Every part of a computer can be exactly identified and described exactly by science. Computers are made of matter and are non living. Trying to prove your point regarding life is made from atoms by making some comparison about computers is like trying to prove life is made of atoms by talking about rocks or plastic or spark plugs or TVs. Stick to the subject. Does science provide evidence that atoms are alive or a group of atoms become alive? Y/N. Stop with your comparisons. Where is the science that shows atoms are alive or that a group of atoms become alive. I am a scientific purist, 100% science is the only acceptable answer. If you want to discuss how you THINK atoms become alive, well that is fine, just state that this is your opinion and has no basis in science. If you know of science that states empirically that a group of atoms become alive, then just provide the evidence. This is so simple I just don’t see why people continue to state their opinion when there is science to back up their point. There is science that states atoms become alive right?
×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• 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.