dimreepr

Sorry I've not watched the whole video, is that what they claim? It does seem a little far fetched through a metal object! It would not be too difficult to design it in a 3D modeller such as solidwords or autocad and build from those designs (what we do).

Having re-watched the video they do seem to be making that claim, they scan the wrench with what appears to be a 3D laser scanner. I can only imagine they skipped the extra input or overlaid the scan with an existing model of the wrench.

I’m sorry I didn’t make myself at all clear. I understand how you could design the wrench to be movable and in one piece the process being layer by layer. What I’m unclear of is how you take an external scan and without further input have enough information of the internal mechanism to make it movable?

Stumbled on this quite by accident. Many of you are probably familiar with either the process or the scam, just not me? Which is it? What gives? Is it really for real?

 

3-D printed tool? http://www.wimp.com/functionaltools/

I'm familiar with the process in that it’s possible to create plastic (not sure of the chemicals involved) shapes in this way, however I can’t see how the wrench could be made without making it in three separate parts.

Not at all.

 

It could well be the signature of a rational mind grappling with unavoidable impending doom.

 

Think of someone with Alzheimer's disease who is in the last stages of being able to think ratiionally. Such a person might very well wish to end his life. At this point in time no one, not even family, can legally assist that person in carrying out his very rational wish. The result is immense expense and turmoil for the family, while the patient slips from the grip of reality, into an existence that cannot be called living.

 

Been there.

Good point.

Couldn't this be covered by a living will?

I ask those that are posting 'attacks in the name of religion', what is your motivation for posting these kinds of things? Let's assume your argument is correct and that someone of that religion is reading this forum. They interpret these postings as the truth and thereby decide to act upon what is declared as a religious must. Is non-religion defined as the prompting and provoking of others to prove a point? Posting without integrity proves little for the point of either the religious or non-religious but just calls humanity as a whole into disrepute.

Seriously you think I’m advocating such atrocities? Anyone who takes my post as a call to arms is sociopathic and needs psychiatric help, religious or not...

They also assess the person to make sure they have "sound judgement".

If one is suicidal couldn’t this be considered to be contradictory by definition?

 

Tony Nicklinson, 58, from Melksham, Wiltshire, has "locked-in syndrome" following a stroke in 2005 and is unable to carry out his own suicide.

 

He is seeking legal protection for any doctor who helps him end his life.

 

The Ministry of Justice argues making such a ruling would authorise murder and change the law governing it.

 

"Locked-in syndrome" leaves people with paralysed bodies but fully-functioning minds.

 

Mr Nicklinson, who communicates through the use of an electronic board or special computer, said before the ruling that his life was "dull, miserable, demeaning, undignified and intolerable".

 

During the radio interview, Mrs Nicklinson passed on questions to her husband, using his letters board to spell out his response.

 

When asked what he hoped would happen next, he replied: "I will be able to access a doctor when the time is right."

 

He went on to spell out: "I can just about cope with life at the moment, but not forever."

 

Having survived my own suicide attempt (at the time of trying it wasn’t a cry for help) I have since changed my mind on the subject.

Should this be allowed?

Isn’t this just a temporary state of mind however long this state persists?

Does a doctor’s oath become meaningless if s/he is allowed to kill?

Please don’t end this thread I haven’t laughed so much since my granny caught her tit in the mangle.

My point is that no where in the article do either of the two people involved in the murder (and yes I recognise that there were two) claim that the murder was done in the name of a.) religion or b.) a specific religion.

 

I also think that wetting your pants is not what the Bible was referring to as a sign of a witch and perhaps this would put doubt to any claim they would've made had they said it was in religion.

You're getting caught up in the minutia (probably deliberately) of the argument, do the crusades mean nothing to you? Ordered by the pope in which many thousands died in the name of God.

(edit) Not to mention the inquisition, torture’s such fun, God loves it when the bloody atheists get what’s coming...

You need a density orders of magnitude higher than the current average density of matter and a temperature orders of magnitude colder, and the way you get colder is via expansion, which lowers the density.

Ok but does this preclude the chance that some areas of space could achieve the required density and temperature to form BEC and if so would this region of space be big enough for observation (given were about to observe) or would the density create a higher temperature and thus inhibit the formation?

(edit) I guess I've answered myself here so don't worry about a reply.

 

So, atheists who demand evidence for God's existence, define what you mean by evidence, then theists can use your definition to present evidence for God's existence.

 

This is the definition of evidence in the Oxford English dictionary. Good luck in providing you're evidence btw.

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court: without evidence, they can't bring a charge

signs; indications: there was no obvious evidence of a break-in

 

And also tell everyone what is your concept of God, for everyone to see whether you have the correct concept of God; and just restrict yourselves to God in the Christian faith in His fundamental relation to the universe: because that is the God that atheists are really opposed to or denying existence of, it is the reason why they atheists are into debates with Christians and not with other religions having also gods, goddesses, divinities, deities, whatever.

 

I don't have a concept of God, of any sort, I'm an atheist.

 

To posters who are fond of just giving links, don't just give web references, produce the text you refer to, or better express the thought of the text you refer to in your own words.

 

Adopt this rule and practice: Give the gist of the text referred to, and then give the cite.

 

You don't get to decide the rules of the forum.

dude love ur energy, but what i referred 2 in the video comes from here: http://www.astrology...702_1/index.htm

 

1519 had pluto/capricorn, neptune/pisces, mars/leo, which will be the same in 2012.

Did you miss this part or just ignored it?

 

Caveat:

I am not claiming that the following paper is "proof" of astrology. It clearly is not. It is, however, a logical first step in the testing process. Hypothesis hunting (explained below) is a legitimate procedure for finding factors which may be tested further on new batches of data.

 

Coincidence isn’t evidence.

I got interested in reading Von Daniken`s Chariot of the Gods when I first entered college (1976 ). I found out Christ Jesus was a cosmonaut. Our earth was once a sun. The moon the earth. The sun a former star. That while there`s still time, mankind`s got to find a way once the sun gives off her last breath. That will incinerate earth in time with a mega solar flash. Only a few chosen ones will survive by building a space craft to escape this so-called Kaliyuga or Kalayu (Fire) age. But can they really do that when they have no where to go? Christ Jesus therefore with his great wisdom has decided to turn earth into Spaceship ET. The recent earthquakes we are experiencing are caused by the rumbling sounds of the earth`s boosters. Broom..brooom... Similar to warming up a formula car.Before Judgment Day, Christ Jesus will fly all of us on board Spaceship ET (Earth) to that universe where the sun is the eye of Vishnu. & the moon the mind of Siva.The Spaceship ET once it journeys to that new frontier wont have a problem on how her crew & passengers will survive without the dying sun since it's equipped with nuclear power plants. The passengers, of course, stay under the earth with heaters & coolers as well as perfected ventilation system lest all will die of hypoxia & hypothermia. Water won't be a problem. Since water from the frozen rivers, lakes, etc will be tapped during the long journey. Food wont be scarce because the passengers of Spaceship ET will have their own gardens. For protein, frozen tuna, salmon, crabs, shrimps, etc are readily available from the frozen oceans & seas, etc. At 360 warp speed everything will be back to normal once Spaceship ET enters the Narayan space & orbits the eye (sun) of Vishnu.When Spaceship ET is exposed to the rays of Vishnu's eye (sun), earth's frozen oceans, seas, rivers, & lakes gradually start melting & aquatic animals brought back to life.Above sea level every living form that was frozen are also brought back to life. The rays of Vishnu's eye (sun) do not scorch or bring sunburn to the skin. In fact, its light is cool & soothing. & human beings who resided under the earth during the long, cold & dark journey in space resurface & beholden by what they see- a Paradise. The ruler here will no longer be men & women but Christ Jesus himself.

"Quick robin to the batmobile, the jokers escaped again"

"Holy crap on a cracker batman"

BEC is a matter of density as well as temperature.

I see so it would never form universally?

Please move if this is in the wrong forum.

 

Although the temperature of the Universe will continue to drop, it will approach zero but never reach it. The energy that is in the temperature will spread out thinner and thinner, but since that energy is non-zero, no matter what volume it is spread over, the average is never exactly zero, just smaller and smaller.

 

Dr. Eric Christian

 

When/if the universe reaches the critical temperature for the Bose-Einstein condensate to form, what effects would this have to observation of the universe?

I`m here to defend the devotees of God from being slaughtered ( not literally) by atheists and scientists.

 

 

 

It strikes me that the devotees of god are not the ones being attacked.

If you possess the will to love your enemy. How many here has the will to forgive and love Osama Bin Laden? I`ve been a prison doctor for almost six years before I was recalled to my mother office and not once did I condemn an inmate accused of raping his daughter to go to hell.

 

Really njaohnt, it seems you can’t even reply to your own post with any coherence.

I`m a gov`t physician & what I do in treating my patients is based on what I learned from med school & being able to pass the physician licensure exams to get a license to practice medicine. After 25 years, I learned there are still diseases which medical science can not find a cure. Take for example cancer. Almost all with stage 3-4 cancer despite the advances in oncology, surgery , radiotherapy, chemotherapy ,etc have failed in curing completely the big C. How about mental illness? It`s next to impossible to cure a schizophrenic the paranoid type. The disease is even linked to being possessed by demons. So, if ever you get the big C or become ill mentally overnight, I`m doubt if doctors can cure you with what they learned in their study and practice of medicine. I even know personally of doctors themselves who succumbed to cancer. They spent millions of pesos for chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy & yet died in vain. So, when science fails where do you turn to? Of course you turn to God by asking God within yourself why there are so many diseases that can not be cured by medical science & yet can be cured by faith. The blind can see, the deaf can hear, the lame can walk, cancer cured, etc. If there`s ever a science which is very difficult to apply and do wonders it is in the field of medicine. In other words, scientists know they possess knowledge of unusual events, occurrences & nature of things by conducting trials and experiments to validate, document what they think can be explained. If they can explain the nature of cancer then why can they not find a single cure for it?

The cure for cancer may not be available now, maybe tomorrow, but science is making progress. When has faith re-grown an amputated limb?

Intro

While most people posting on this forum describe themselves as atheists, determinists or some other form of non-believer, I would be surprised if many don't have some secret superstitions. Personally, I wrote my exams with a lucky pen. I know others think they can influence the outcome of a football game by either watching or not watching.

 

I want to talk about any possible scientific explanation why superstition might work - or why it can be proven to be bogus.

Obviously, since this is posted in The Lounge, if you just want to tell us your silly superstition, or a funny anecdote, that's welcome too.

 

The lucky pen

I believe that my lucky pen must have boosted my confidence and reduced my nervousness... but I am not sure I have enough data points to make a good correlation (with small enough error) to say it actually worked. But it might have actually improved my results at exams.

 

All superstition regarding sports

This one annoys me. Since the butterfly effect is sort-of accepted science, any action at any distance from the actual stadium can influence the game, although probably very marginally. So, yes, I really think you can influence the game. But by how much? And can you change it in favor of your team? I don't see how.

But if you reverse it: can I prove that it does not work? I don't see how.

 

Does anyone have any other silly superstitions, or do you want to explain why it's all bogus? This is the thread.

Humans and many other animals want and need (in some way) routine, this could be an extension of that need.

Guess it boils down to self satisfaction.

 

Yes it does, thanks for your honesty.

 

True to a point. We know that singularity is there BECAUSE the maths break down at that point. We can reasonably deduce the nature by examining other singularities (or the stuff around them). But even that tells us a lot about the nature of the beast. And as I stated before, this is not something I'm claiming to be 100% accurate. It is just what can reasonably be deduced from what is known and has been observed. People just tend to freak out when the word "creator" pops up. My comments weren't intended to be fully directed at a creator, but instead in the conditions that are necessary for one to exist. Something had to ocurr with that singularity that was outside the realm of its existance.

Does it have to be an outside force? Couldn’t it be that it reached a critical mass? A black hole continuously sucks in (for want of a better word) matter or photons that cross the event horizon, at some point could this not be the reason for the reaction rather than a creator?

Why not?

Fair enough, though this answer is the same as a mountaineer saying “because it’s there” when asked why s/he climbed the mountain, it’s more of an evasion than an answer.

And you're wrong about knowing nothing of singularities. Actually a book was just reffered to me co-written by Hawking on the subject of the singularity before the present expansion. Although boreing in places, and being rather long, it lays out the math and subsequent observations that lead to the high probability of the existance of a singularity. The only thing that is stated in that book that can even come close to contradicting my thoughts on the subject is that they couldn't tell if the initial singularity was stable or not. To me it would seem that, if that singularity was "all there is", meaning no space-time, that it would have no choice but to be stable. This has been my point all along. The name of the book, if you're interested, is "The large scale structure of spacetime" and the explanation for the singularity at the beginning of the BB starts on ch.10 page 348. I won't go through the trouble of providing the links for the BB theory where it includes this singularity, since it is real easy to find and states it in every copy I've found thus far.

 

As far as I’m aware at the present time maths breaks down at the point of a singularity. Speculation as to its nature isn’t the same as the fact of its nature.

 

It's rather amussing that people just state "you're wrong" without doing even the slightest amount of background reading to make such a claim.

 

 

When have I said you’re wrong? Assuming I have read nothing on the subject is a little arrogant though I’m quite happy to accept my ignorance especially when compared to many/most of the members on this site.

dimreeper,

 

Okay I should have said agnostic DEIST then. I think definition 2 still fits the bill though. It's funny that you want to nitpick my choice in the word agnostic enough to go through definitions, but when it comes to what a singularity is you're not so picky. People can say that the BB came from a singularity and the obvious answer to me is NO, a singularity can not incite action. But we'll just overlook that little detail and get picky about a word chosen to discribe someone's expectation of gaining a certain knowledge. Because that applies to the fundamentals of the conversation doesn't it?

 

Ok you got me I was nitpicking but damn it I wanted to play... Since the fact, that at present nothing is known about singularities. As so well and eloquently pointed out by members with far more knowledge than me and so often ignored by you I had little choice as to my nitpicking target. The only logical argument of a God/creator that has even made me think twice is Descartes ontological argument (ok I’ll be honest it made me think lots and lots) but it only goes to show the futility of trying to use logic alone to prove a God/creator and since there is NO evidence it leaves me with just one question and I ask this more in hope than expectation, WHY try?

Seems to me that Justin is entitled to be an agnostic. One cannot be agnostic and also dismiss the possibility of a creator (or a causeless beginning, or no beginning, etc).

 

He is indeed entitled to be an agnostic, but the very definition means, holding neither of two opposing positions. He clearly argues for a creator, thus making his position that of a theist or deist.

It seems that people are under the assumption that I am a christian. Why? Have I said anything to indicate I have a religious preference? As I have stated previously, I consider myself an agnostic and have no clue as to what characteristics a creator may have.

 

You seem to be arguing quite strongly (vehemently even) in the defence of a creator (of sorts) which, for me, flies in the face of what an agnostic is.

Agnostic [ag-nos-tik]

noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

2.

a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

3.

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

adjective

4.

of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.

5.

asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

6.

holding neither of two opposing positions: If you take an agnostic view of technology, then it becomes clear that your decisions to implement one solution or another should be driven by need.

Faith

   [feyth] Show IPA noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

 

 

su·per·sti·tion

   [soo-per-stish-uhn] Show IPA noun 1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, especially in connection with religion. 5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

 

Christianity is the first and not the latter. The argument I gave in the OP is perfectly reasonable and uses current scientific knowledge in its first premise. So please I think my discourse can escape the Superstition moniker.

 

We can all cherry pick our favourite definitions to bolster our own particular argument this, however, is intellectually dishonest. You also seem to cherry pick the questions you choose to answer.