Jump to content

Greg H.

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Greg H.

  1. Is curvature the force of levity?

     

     

     

    def: levity

    upwards force

    syn: lift

     

    welcome to my wormhole.002

     

     

    thus dogma clearly dictates

    Curvature is not just the reaction to force.

    Flat planes cannot wing upside up much less upside down.

    Only curved wings can fly upside up; curved wings cannot fly upside down.

    Rockets cannot fly in outer space.

     

    Dogma does not over rule the precedence of self evident observation.

     

    Can you name a shape that cannot be induced to produce lift?

    No; you can't.

     

    just sayin'

    rw

     

    You do realize this made absolutely no sense at all, right?

     

    And why are you on about dogma again?

  2. No, because the total amount of energy in (electricity + heat) is greater than the amount out (heat). You can't just ignore one of the energy inputs into the system and say it generates more energy than it consumes.

    I didn't say that there was no other source, just that you don't have to pay for that source. It is a way of extracting some 'free' energy from under ground.

     

    That doesn't make it an over unity device. It just makes it cheaper to operate.

  3. Human being is the most intelligent and perfect creature on thisplanet and our basic and primary concern should be to strive to understand theorigin, constituents and purpose of human being. Unless and until correct,logical and rational answers are found, nothing could be right about the lifeof the human beings on this planet. Human beings have reached almost to thepoint of climax of scientific and intellectual development and with theavailable knowledge & information, it is high time and it should not bevery difficult to find out answers of these basic and fundamental questions.

    Human beings are the most intelligent and perfect beings on the planet? By what unbiased, objective standard?

     

    The humankind being aspecial and perfect creature and our primary concern, let our attention be onthe human beings only.

    As I highly doubt your initial premise is correct, I'm finding your conclusions based on that premise to be less than convincing.

    By spiritualpower is meant to have the control over his 'energy' through which he isexposed to different experiences which cannot be expressed by him. The mysticor Sufi has the control over his 'energy' and the degree of control varies frommystic to mystic depending upon the purity of his mind and intention. With timethe mystic attains the perfection through increase in control over his 'energy';if he sustains the hardships and maintains his purity of mind and intention.Through 'energy' within him, the mystic can have the senses of hearing, seeingand movement independent of the organs of hearing, seeing and those of movementof the body. The perfection of the mystic could reach the climax when themystic attains the power to influence the 'energy' of the other human being.

     

    Since life in the human being is dueto the interaction of body and the 'energy' and through the influence on the 'energy'the diseases of the diseased could be cured by mystic, whereas doctors throughchemicals, which influence different organs of the patient, cure the patients;besides doctors repair the damages of different organs/tissues throughoperations to cure the patients. Most of the diseases are due to somemalfunction of the cells/tissues either due to the attack of bacteria orviruses or otherwise or else because of the malfunction of the 'energy' withinthe cells/tissues. The mystic through the influence on the 'energy' within thecells/tissues can cure both types of diseases whereas the doctors could curethe cells/tissues by chemicals or operation. This should explain the mysticcuring of the patients which hitherto has been an unexplained phenomenon byscience, theology or philosophy.

    By what stretch of the imagination does this have anything to with the topic at hand? Furthermore, I can explain anything by saying "Goddidit". That doesn't actually answer the question, it just moves the goal posts.

     

    Lastly the child's brain is not developed enough to corelate the instincts with innate knowledge of right & wrong.

     

    So you're saying it's something that they learn. If they have to learn it, how is it innate?

     

    This is yet more of your obfuscation of answers to push forward your pet theories concerning why science is wrong is religion is right. I was hoping you had moved past your earlier poor arguments.

  4. Moral code & innate knowledge within human beings has been studied by numerous philosophers like Descartes, Hume, Kant and several others. Read them thoroughly to know how moral code is innate. Taboos & traditions do not define what is right & what is wrong.

     

    I'm familiar with Descartes and Hume's work. I disagree with the idea that ideas of morality are innate. If they were innate, children would know it was wrong to take other people's toys without asking (stealing is wrong), that you shouldn't hurt other people (violence is wrong), and that you should always tell the truth (lying is wrong). Nothing I have seen convinces me that there is a universal idea of right and wrong. We learn those concepts from our parents (or guardians) directly, and from our society more broadly.

  5. Would you not say a heatpump (electricity IN, heat OUT) is a over-unity device? You can get more heat enery out as electricity put in. But it doesn't defy physics laws, because you extract heat from the ground.

     

    No, because the total amount of energy in (electricity + heat) is greater than the amount out (heat). You can't just ignore one of the energy inputs into the system and say it generates more energy than it consumes.

  6. Supremacy is with the decision for taking an action. Decision about an action would depend upon what human wills with the innate knowledge of whether that will is right or wrong. Decision is the freedom of human being with prior knowledge that decision being right or wrong. How humans use their innate knowledge of right & wrong about actions in their activities would determine the destination of the human beings.

     

    I'll ask it again, since you glossed right over it:

     

    What makes the knowledge of right and wrong innate? Especially since different cultures have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong.

  7. I am Industrial Engineer with a large experience in making multidisciplinary projects, and I am not an expert in academic knowledge of basic and theoretical phisics science. But possibly, that is why I'm not a slave of the bonds of conventional science.

     

     

    There is a significant difference between being a slave to dogma, and failing to grasp the basic laws of nature.

  8. This is actually an interesting topic (the idea of "What year is it really?").

     

    I remember the first day of my freshman philosophy class quite vividly. The instructor came in, picked up the text book and said, "What color is this book?"

     

    To which all forty (or so) of us responded unwaveringly, "Blue!".

     

    Then he asked, "Why?"

     

    I admit it, I was stumped for a while. It took me a long time to grasp that some of the things we take for granted (such as the names of colors, or what year it is) are simply societal agreements to make communicating easier. If we all agree the year is 2012 AD, then we can behave as if it is 2012 AD, regardless of how much time has actually elapsed since the event marking the beginning of that count.

  9. Also, like said above. There is no point on mesing with dates. We are a georgian calender and otehr calenders are completly different so the date you give will not be the actual dates for such events. Like in GCSE Russian History. We were taught things happened in September, when really they actually happened end of october. Different Calenders cause confusion to people.

     

    One other thing that I read years ago, and I will humbly apologize that I can't find the source anymore to quote it directly, is that our calendar (the once used by the Western world at least) is off by as much as 7 years one way or the other due to accuracy issues during the dark and middle ages.

     

    So whenever I see these people freaking out about the end of the world in 2012, I just smile and think "But it's already 2019."

     

  10. But dark matter does exist! (I'm sorry, I had to do that.)

     

    Holly,

     

    You might try searching Google Scholar for some references. You won't get to see all of them (some of them will be locked behind subscription sites) but you should find something you can use.

     

    I did a quick search for "against dark matter", and came up with some hits such as

     

    Evidence against disappation-less dark matter

     

     

    It's only a letter to the magazine Nature, but the chap who wrote it is a professor of astronomy from UC Berkley, so at least he's not a barking loon.

     

    Google scholar is available at http://scholar.google.com

     

    Hope that helps.

  11. Reason #3 this wouldn't work. You're closing the barn door after the cow got out. Bald men don't father all that many babies. Young men who may or may not go bald in another 20 years or more are the ones who father babies. By the time those men do go bald they are all done with the Daddy business.

     

    Essentially, you would have to find and sterilize all bald men, and all of their descendants, on an ongoing basis, for generations. The problem then becomes - what else did you just select out of the genome without meaning to?

  12. This wouldn't work for two reasons.

     

    Reason #1 is that it's targeting the wrong gender. Genes from the father might alter the pattern, alter the susceptibility, but baldness is primarily passed from mother to son. A culprit has even been found on the X in a gene that regulates androgen receptors. Having all bald men stop fathering babies (and how are you going to accomplish that?) would do nothing with regard to the goal of eliminating baldness.

     

    Reason #2 is that it's pure evil. The only way to stop men from fathering babies / women from having babies is to sterilize them. Forced sterilization nowadays is a punishment reserved for the worst of sex offenders.

     

    Respectfully, I have to disagree with reason #2. Evil is not a factor in determining effectiveness. While I agree it's wrong, nature doesn't share our idea of ethics. As CP said, selective breeding will work on humans, even if it happens to be morally reprehensible and enforced selective breeding.

  13. The first episode of The Amazing Race aired on Sept 5, 2001 according to IMDB. You're either remembering wrong or it was a different show with a similar name and theme. These things happen.

     

    Dragging the thread back on topic, most likely the version of Windows 7 that you saw was just an earlier version of Windows rebranded with a different name for the Asian market. Companies do this all the time. It's not really that exciting.

  14. So that leads me to ask a question:

     

    If the earth was larger in diameter (yielding a larger volume of matter) but the mass remained the same, what would happen to the surface gravity?

     

    My thinking is that it should go down, right?

     

    If that is so, then is it true to say that an object's gravitational influence is related to the density of that object in some fashion?

    --- Edit

    Ok, so a little research and some math later, and it turns out I'm right.

     

    Assuming the mass stays constant, the surface gravity increases as the radius of the object decreases.

     

    [math]

    g = \frac{Gm}{r^2}

    [/math]

     

    Where G = gravitational constant, m = mass of the object, and r = radius of the object.

     

    From Surface Gravity

  15. Also, if the hole is small enough, surface tension will be great enough that a bubble cannot be let in, as with a straw with one end blocked.

     

    IIRC, the Greeks had some sort of ladle that worked on this principle. You dunked the bowl with small holes in it into a water source, covered the hole on the end of the long neck with your thumb and lifted out a bowl full of water.

     

    I'll have to see if I can find it.

  16. At this point I am withdrawing from this discussion so that I don't violate the rules of the forum. I may rejoin if the OP decides to post some actual science, as opposed to conjecture.

     

    Good luck gentlemen -- I have a feeling you'll need it.

     

    For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple...and wrong.

  17. I made this topic to see what angles others would take on the theory and there have been some interesting angles. Using only very basic physics and science, this thoery does not at any point so far fall apart.

     

    We've given you about a hundred different posts on why this idea of yours (stop calling it a theory - it's not a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. It barely counts as a hypothesis) falls apart, and you have not yet provided any reason to make us recant our collective position.

     

    It's not that the scientific community is "out to get you" or "hide the truth from the masses". You're just wrong.

  18. I didn't quite think of it as an exposition, but that's a fair question. Basiclly, I am a cautious individual, and if you have read or listened to any of Richards philosophy you soon realize he is a total Atheist. Which means, the glass is definitly empty or full. I am dichotomous. No ill intent, just being practical. Actually I like listening to him.

     

    Fair enough, and I definitely appreciate the honest consideration of the question. Some people would have just blown it off.

  19. At this point I am not even sure what to say. We've essentially refuted your idea with science that's been done over the last hundred years, yet you offer no new reasons why we should reconsider your idea. You're not offering any mechanisms for the expansion of the earth which haven't already been shown to be wrong (or just flat out impossible) and when we ask you to back up your assertions with some kind of evidence, or even a proposal for some new mechanism, you tell us you haven't thought that far ahead yet.

     

    This is what my dad would call a half baked idea. Put it back in the oven a while.

  20. The problem is you expect science to be presented a certain way, in the stereo typical way.

     

    This much is true - we expect assertions to be backed up with evidence, not hand waving and repetition of the same idea over and over again. Contrary to popular belief, saying something repeatedly does not necessarily mean it's true.

     

    Unfortunately for you, that's the way the rest of the scientific community expects it to be presented too.

     

    Also, your analogy to the man creating fire is a bad one. Man discovered fire, he didn't research it. Most probably he found a burning bush or tree from alighting strike, or some other source - who knows. The point is, he didn't need science to discover the fire itself. It was already out there waiting for him to stumble over it.

     

    Where the science comes in is, how does fire work? What does it mean to burn something? What changes are happening during the burning? These DID require a scientific approach, positing of theories and then testing those theories to acquire evidence. As a result, we now have a pretty solid idea of the chemical changes that happen in fuels being burned.

     

    The problem with your idea is all the evidence for the last century refutes the idea that the earth is expanding, and you haven't presented any new mechanisms or causes that might force a reversal on that course.

×
×
  • 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.