Tres Juicy

You are not describing anything here but terrorism. The heavens will never be opened up to us fully until we know how it its laws function. Until now your scientists assume all energy is contained within atomic structure and attempts to take that atomic structure with the ship into space. There is already power in space and on the world that can be used help feed the hungry. Corruption prevails in the minds of men and prevents this knowledge of God and his gift of power to us occurring. Name me a honest man?

Wthout religion how many terrorists would there be?

If you want to learn about God, do not ask one another because its then the blind leading the blind.

Luke chapter 6 verse 39 And He spoke a parable to them: "Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?

 

There is only one teacher given to us, and its not the church or its leaders.

Mathew chapter 23 verses 8-10:

8. "But you, do not be called `Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren.

9. "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

10. "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

 

Your links do nothing but to establish the confusion resulting from self misguided education resulting from having the wrong teacher.

Ok, so who taught you?

What makes you think that you're not being led by the blind?

 

Before you hit that minus, think. You won't come up with an answer, except to hit the plus. If you still want to press the minus, you haven't thought enough.

And yet, you're suggesting "god did it" is a viable explanation

Maybe you haven't thought enough

What did you not understand about, "the structure of the genetic code it is a product of the movement of the earth using the spiral forces of the cosmos".

This is rubbish

Evolution is the also another word for the development of the structure of all life by the power referred to as God.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The word miracles comes not from God but from none understanding by men. My explanation holds true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle

Your "explanation" is crap

Have you ever seen, "Manmade Gravity" or / Gravity,s fingerprint in Nature?

 

Well, I have in broth cases!

Doubtful at best

At least in humans colour perception is largely universal even if it is not uniform.

 

Can you prove this?

I may well percieve the sky to be red, but since I have been taught from an early age that the name of that colour is blue I will call it blue

If you show me what you percieve to be blue, I will also call it blue

It doesn't mean we see the same thing

Man is a product of God, He has the ability to reproduce himself, how and why this ability occurs is by no accident. The structure of the genetic code it is a product of the movement of the earth using the spiral forces of the cosmos. This is the work of the power of God himself (the potter). Do you not see this? Or is it all just miraculous to you?

I think that you are the one calling it miraculous!

You've given it no explanation other than that

Do you not understand evolution?

Science does not rely on miracles pal. It's about getting to the true explanations rather than the feeble cop out that is "god did it"

Six pages of argument tells me that the answer to the question in the title is "No".

Very astute

If you have doubts about this go parachuting in a vacuum and see what happens....

Respectfully - where did it say you needed to believe in God. you need to know him and follow the rules - the jesuitical amongst us would state that anyone following a good and blameless life has done exactly that. I am an atheist now but in my (admittedly very liberal) Catholic upbringing I was never told that belonging to a certain group or even believing was the important bit - it was always one's actions and following one's conscience. Some reformation protestants had a distinctly different view - ie some were saved and others were not, regardless of actions. Act with a good conscience and you were ok - the religious have the ultimate get-out clause here, ie the ability to examine one's conscience and follow it arises from god's intercession. If you act in a way that you know is incorrect then you must acknowledge it, be sorry for it, and endeavour not to do it again. it's a pretty good catch all ethos - it's survived for quite a few centuries. every so often people try and change it to their own selfish ends and you have problems (and the religion tries to take over the world); but the general gist is that that actions are more important than words.

 

edit although reading that full verse it is a bit ott and condemnatory. - but then paul was a bit of a #!*&. I know what you mean - but it is not quite as cut and dried as many in this thread have made it out to be

Fair point.

But the general gist is "do as I say or else"

Missed this somehow before my other post.

I gather from seeing your other posts around, that you are reasonably mathematically literate. So you may be able to derive the Lorentz transforms from some simple thought experiments.

 

Here's one to get you started (it should yield a time dilation formula).

 

Consider a pair of paralell plates or mirrors with a photon or laser beam (or other speed of light object) bouncing between them.

 

Simulation of this situation here:

http://www.refsmmat....tml#light-clock

 

The object/photon/whatever (let's call it a ball to avoid confusion with wave stuff) is bouncing between the plates which are (for convenience) 1 light second apart.

The ball takes 1 second per bounce, (and the local clocks will tick once for every time it bounces)

Now consider a frame in which the whole contraption is moving up.

 

The ball bouncing off of a plate is an event, the fact that it happens cannot change.

But in a different frame, the time and place of an event might change. The ball has moved a different distance (to meet the moving plate).

 

 

Some assumptions which should help:

1. The ball is moving at the same speed in both frames (that is the magnitude of its velocity is constant).

 

2. The dimensions of space are independant. Change in velocity upwards will not cause any non-classical or otherwise unexpected change in sideways distances or positions.

 

3. Constant velocity. Something moving inertially (at constant speed) in one frame will be moving at constant speed in other frames.

 

 

 

From this and other similar situations, you can derive special relativity logically with no need for further experimental results (other than the constancy of the speed of light).

Once you have a working formula for time dilation, you can derive length contraction as well (a good thought experiment is to consider a car moving on a rail and the observations of the moving and stationary observer -- add beacons, laser beams (a pair of lasers fired from the center of the car simultaneously at either end of the car is useful) etc as you like to see what will happen).

 

Other notes:

Keep careful track of signs, probably the easiest thing to muck up.

Velocity of [math]\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}c[/math] leads to convenient numbers.

You may see factors of [math] \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}[/math] pop up a lot, it helps to give them a name. Traditionally we set [math]\gamma = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}[/math]

You don't really need to keep track of three directional dimensions, you can happily set z=0 v_z =0 and leave it out.

Taking derivatives and keeping track of some calculus identities can sometimes sidestep a bit of algebra (but you only need algebra to do the calculations).

 

 

Feel free to post your progress/requests for further help here if you decide to have a go at it (or if you want to try, but are still a bit lost)

Cool, I will have a look at this properly when I'm not at work

Thanks SH!

aye, there's the rub. the distances are the same when measured from within the same frame - not when measured from frames in relative motion

 

 

neither is false, both are correct when viewed from their own frame of reference. the speed of light is the same - time and distance in a frame in relative motion vary. we like to think of distance as invariant - it is not. this is not instinctive and goes against much that seems incontrovertible - however is has a massive amount of experimental proof behind it and is mathematically as tight as a drum.

Could you point me towards some of the experimental proofs?

I think I'd like to read a little more on the subject

Thanks

 

Let's say for a moment that Defkalion's announcement to allow independent scientific institutions to test their generator yields a positive result. What an indictment of the present process! What does that say about the present state of our science method?

 

It says that it works.

Once independently tested if proven it becomes mainstream science.

Testable, repeatable results is what science is based on

 

#3, Distance is also relative. The stationary observer sees the target as 2,997,924.58 kilometers (10 light seconds) away. To the person on the 0.5 c horse, the target is only 2,596,278.84 kilometers (8.660254 light seconds) away.

How can distance be realtive?

Surely they are either at the same distance or they are not?

With this in mind, if B (stationary) fires a laser past A while he is moving at 0.5c B measures the light to move away from him at c and A also observes the light going past him to move away from him at c (even though he is moving at 0.5c)

Is that right? If it is surely one of these measurements is false?

I mean the light cannot be doing different speeds for different observers can it?

 

In the grand scheme of things humans really are insignificant. In this vast universe, we are probably no more important than insects.

Insects are far more important than us. Wipe out insects and the ecosystem fails

Wipe out people and it flourishes

Hi all,

So, Relativity says that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference, but I can't get my head around it...

Here's my question:

2 observers A an B

A is riding a horse (why not?) at ¹/₂ c - B is stationary.

A fires a laser at a distant target and measures the speed of light travelling away from him to be c

B, our stationary observer also measures the speed of light travelling away from him to be c

So lets say that the laser was fired while the two observers are at an equal distance away from the target and that from that dstance the light will take 10 seconds to reach the target from that point.

Does that depend on the reference frame?

Does the stationary B measure the time it takes to be 10 seconds, while the moving A measure it to be 5 seconds? How can the light move away from A (who is travelling at ¹/₂ c) at c and not reach the target sooner than it would if fired from a stationary position?

Or do they both measure the same? If so, that can't be right can it? If they both measure the same then the speed of light is different in each frame(?!)

That's enough for now I think....

Can someone enlighten me as to how this works?

HA! We're all screwed if we don't convert!

That's what I was told...

New International Version (©1984)

He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.New Living Translation (©2007)

in flaming fire, bringing judgment on those who don't know God and on those who refuse to obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus.

English Standard Version (©2001)

in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)

dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

International Standard Version (©2008)

in blazing fire. He will take revenge on those who do not know God and on those who refuse to obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)

Whenever he executes vengeance in blazing fire on those who do not know God and on those who have not recognized The Good News of our Lord Yeshua The Messiah,

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)

He will take revenge on those who refuse to acknowledge God and on those who refuse to respond to the Good News about our Lord Jesus.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

American King James Version

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

American Standard Version

rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus:

Douay-Rheims Bible

In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Darby Bible Translation

in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ;

English Revised Version

in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus:

Webster's Bible Translation

In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Weymouth New Testament

He will come in flames of fire to take vengeance on those who have no knowledge of God, and do not obey the Good News as to Jesus, our Lord.

World English Bible

giving vengeance to those who don't know God, and to those who don't obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus,

Young's Literal Translation

in flaming fire, giving vengeance to those not knowing God, and to those not obeying the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ;

Lucky it's all crap eh?

There's a simple reason that proves a time machine is not logically possible to be built (I'm not talking about scientific experiments). Assuming we manage to build a time machine, we would use it to go back in past. But if we went in the past, the local population would discover our machine. Therefore, it would have already been discovered in the past.

 

Another way of seeing it : if i said we won't be able to build a time machine before 2150, don't you think the scientists living in 2150 would have used their machine to go back at our time so that we would have discovered it ?

 

Hence, if humans were able to build such a machine, it would be a universal and non temporal machine every civilisations would know, which, obviously, is not the case.

One of the theories is that you can only go back n the time frame where the time machine exists.

So if you invent the time machine in 2012 you can't go back to 2011

Bias of the individual and bias of the brain are one and the same Tres! An individual is the brain inside its head!

 

Again the scientific process potentially gives us the necessary tools to look beyond any 'blind spot' that our brains posess regarding the working of the brain. And once again we have done pretty well with unraveling its mysteries thus far.

Yes, I know . And again this goes back to my original post - whether there may be a limit to what we can learn about the brain/consciousness given that they are our only tools for that particular job.

What I mean is perhaps a shared bias exists in all brains

If a "blind spot" existed how would we detect it?

The scientific method/process does a great job but it in itself is a product of the potentially biased human brain

The scientific peer review process is designed to reveal and over come bias even if individual scientists can't see that they are biased.

 

Thus far it is worked extremely well given our level of technology and knowledge about life and the cosmos.

If it was a failure or only partially successful then I guess we would still be living in the dark ages.

I'm not talking about individual bias, but the bias of the brain in general (all brains)

The reason I say this is that it may be that the human brain is limited to thinking in certain ways.

I'm wondering if there may be a "blind spot" when it comes to consciousness attempting to understand itself. If that were the case it would be very hard to detect.

Or he's just a sadistic dick an enjoys watching you suffer?

Reallity is reallity.

If your house burns down you don't get to decide that it didn't

i don't believe in anything because i think that it is unfair for me to choose one believe from another, the only thing that i can be certain of is change. i respect all religions and i think that they all serve their purpose, they will always be people who will tell you what to believe but at the end of the day you get to decide what is real.

No, you don't get to decide what's real at all

Thank you for your detailed contribution to the scientific debate!!!!!!

I could elaborate by saying that it is highly unlikely that fire and people incinerating themselves could possibly cause enough selection pressure to make us lose most of our hair as a result

But do I really need to?

In the context of the OP evolutionist is indeed an insult....

I would have to agree here. Although that's not the fault of the poster. It is the fault of whoever wrote the questions.

The questions seem to have been written with an agenda in mind...

These in particular:

How old do you think the earth is and why?

 

Do you believe in life on other planets, aliens, and UFOs?

 

Is evolution still happening, and if so, what do you think will be the end result?

 

Do you believe in life after death? Explain.

 

How do your beliefs in origins and evolution affect your sense of purpose for your own life?

 

I can imagine that the answers to these will likely be used as ammunition to ridicule people with differing views and science in general

What if it's just a really good simulation, such that all possible states that obey the rules are within the specs of the hardware?

What if the glitches are actually just limitations of the universe?

I often think quantum physics is a bit like an artefact of the universe being programmed in Haskell (with lazy evaluation) and some functions have side-effects that the author didn't think of, but taking it seriously isn't really productive.

Which would explain my sock paradox I mentioned earlier