Didymus

Were I to meet an advanced race of aliens who had technology beyond human understanding... I'd appreciate it, try to learn what I could, and try to see if there was anything I could teach to make the benefits mutual. Just as if a modern American went to some remote tribe somewhere and showed them technology they never imagined.... The locals may appreciate it, but would be unlikely to form a religion around it. I wouldn't call it "religion" until it became a matter of both faith and devotion. Something to model one's life around. If it became a matter of "enlightenment" rather than simply learning about new trinkets we haven't thought of yet. ... although anything can be turned into a religion. Everyone knows Star Wars is fake... but there's enough lore behind Jedi culture that people have formed it into a recognized religion. There is no "Force," nor do people think the movies are real... but they take seriously the philosophies invented in that fantasy world. Other people turn sports into a religion. It has nothing to do with faith or supreme powers... but they take a hobby, pass the level of addiction and obsession... and start basing their life around their chosen game.

Cool. A: I was talking about the big bang rather than biogenisis... But, we can roll with that. Since your premise is that your belief in that theory takes nothing on faith... I assume you can cite a reference for a particular successful experiment where a viable cell spontaneously formed under the environment we believe the earth had at that point? What details of that study satisfied every possible variable you could think of? .... Since you didn't simply accept on faith that people in labs are inherently smart, so what they claim must be accurate.

Care to explain? Yes, it's satire to illustrate how ridiculous a claim it is to suggest that people who believe in one creative event under very specific conditions that can't be described are foolish.... While people who believe in a more popular creative event under specific conditions that can't be describedibed are perfectly logical because the other person's beliefs are based on an event that lacks verifiable, falsifiable, repeatable empirical evidence. More importantly, the backlash against people who would think critically and challenge the obvious holes combined with obvious efforts to silence opposing theories clearly demonstrates which side has less intellectual honesty.

Without going in to conspiracies about "our government planning it"... This time of year keeps rehashing the story of 4 planes accomplishing what planes simply can not accomplish. But, aviation technology is kind of my thing. I have my degree on the subject, I'm federally certified, and I've been a professional mechanic for nearly a decade now.... And out of all that time, working for a couple "large companies".... I've never met a single member of the aviation community that believes that a Boeing 757 could have been at any of those crash sites.... Especially the pentagon one. Just wondering if there were people out there with basic training that still thought the official story was in any way possible.

Bingo. That's the point of this thread. I.e. if mass is required for fusion then.... Yes fusion is the process for giving off light and heat and radiation.... But the source of the energy for fusion is gravity. Thus solar power, wind power, hydroelectric power are all second hand means to harness the force of gravity. Thus energy being created since gravity being harnessed and work performed does not deplete a finite amount of gravity that exists within an object. Thus negating the conservation of energy.

Do you honestly believe this logic is rational? Let's apply the same logic to the counterpoint: If you think Christian creationism is matter of faith, Then you haven't studied it enough. Disagreeing can only mean you need to read more books that agree with my logic. When you accept it as fact, you'll understand it. Until then, the only rational explanation for you to disagree with me is because you need to read more books until you agree. True, God hasn't visibly revealed himself (recently), but none of it is taken on "faith." With so much supportive evidence for Christian creation that it would be intellectually dishonest not to believe it as fact regardless of our current lack of evidence. ... I'm not saying the ideas that have gone into that theory are useless... But if we're basing everything on this singularity exploding.... We should define what it is that exploded and how it could exist without being "in" space or time and how literally infinite gravity could be escaped, etc. .... This isn't just nitpicking until I find some minor thing that isn't absolutely understood yet.... This is the basis of the explosion.... Yet science has no explanation for this, yet has the arrogance to assume they can calculate the exact temperature millionths of a second after the explosion? No idea what fueled it or in what state the energy/matter was in or forces necessary to decompress material from a state of infinite compression.... Yet we assume we've "verified" so many details? Sorry to be the one to tell you this.... But that's more magical than any sky fairy explanation I've seen. I specified that at the beginning. You won't win any debates when you avoid all questions by ignorantly assuming your opponent's ignorance. Disagreeing with the popular opinion isn't the same as not understanding it. People who assume their theories are unquestionable only prove that they've failed to ask a sufficient amount of questions. Note... Typed on a cell phone that keeps shifting into Spanish and has a TINY screen. Blame typos on that.

As clearly shown above.... Many things are not only taken on faith... But are defended with such religious devotion that we must silence any who point out that one supernatural explanation isn't inherently more logical than another supernatural explanation. Asking the question of our origin is a religious question. No explanation satisfies the requirement to define it as something other than faith.

Even as a Christian, I wouldnt tell a kid that. Lying to kids about religious concepts will predispose them to assuming that all religion is a lie. If you replace God with santa and say that it's santa that watches over them and judges whether they see "good or bad," then rewards Thwn accordingly.... Only to find out that santa was a lie... The tooth fairy was a lie... This is what builds illogical paranoia of such things. I got fish specifically for the purpose of preparing my daughter to have a discussion about death. When a fish died, she helped me flush it. It's not a ghost. It's just dead.

The cornerstone of the problem is the definitions. The problem most here have with religion is that people accept an idea on faith. Folks may have personal experiences that lead them to believe in a higher power... But this is not repeatable at will, falsifiable, verifiable, etc. Thus, a matter of "faith" which, by definition, is not reasonable. Because there is no objective evidence for it. That being said.... Almost everyone here puts faith in something supernatural for which they have no tangible evidence, but which they believe is perfectly rational. How could a singularity with literally infinite gravity (at the very least, the combined masses of all black holes in existence) explode in a big bang? We don't know.... But it's taken on faith that it did. In spite of the fact that we have no functional idea how that happened.... It's still preached and defended with religious fervor. Likewise, how did evolution begin? In our best experiments, we can barely produce s fraction of a protein... And only under perfect conditions... Usually mutually exclusive conditions.... I.e. there must have been an atmosphere to block out the sun, yet there could have been no oxygen or other gases that would have destroyed the proteins. ...yet, it's taken on faith that it must have happened without so much as a theory, let alone evidence for that theory.... Let alone repeatable verifiable falsifiable evidence. Yet, these people's chosen religion is considered perfectly reasonable.... Even something to be preached in schools on tax money to snuff out any opposing religious ideas.... Yet denying that those ideas are religous themselves. The only way to avoid faith is to not even wonder about anything for which you don't already have evidence. This would yield a sad and sterile world.

I don't think anyone disputes that radiation is also hot down there. That tangent got started because I claimed that gravity provides plenty of usable energy in the water system and air flow. First people said that water only evaporates due to the sun... Yet there are plenty of clouds in the outer 4 planeta with much more Active atmospheres in Spore of much leas heat from fue Sun. Thus, heat from the planet itself plays a significant role. I suggest a large source of this energy is heat provided by pressure and friction a product of gravity. Others attempted to maintain conservation of energy by suggesting that radiation was the source of heat at the earth's core instead of pressure and friction from gravity. Yes, there is quite a bit of "unstable" material releasing energy.... No, there is no logical reason to believe that the absence of that amount of energy would freeze the planet. Otherwise the planet should be steadily cooling as radioactive material is constantly being depleted. Is there evidence of this?

... Circles.... "when estimating the age of the earth, we get the wrong answer if you don't account for radioactive decay." Or.... We get the correct answer, but we can get an answer we like better by adjusting our measurements by a variable until we get a result matching our hypothesis, and conclude that the degree this variable must be applied to reach our predicted answer must be proof that this is the proper variable that represents reality. ... Just like H&K. Delta.... Thank you for your honesty... But how do you know the pressure would be enough to liquify the core, but not enough to sustain such a heat? What leads you to believe that it would have solidified "long ago?" What if the earth's molten core were evidence diverging from popular estimations of the earth's age? Also, no, I'm no Yec... The earth may very well be billions of years old. I've just always been skeptical of radioactive dating. Seen too many known samples with wildly inaccurate errors.... And unknown samples assumed to be spot on.

Sure. So, what percentage of the core do you believe is radioactive? And material with a half life slow enough to have been around since the formation of the earth will generate enough heat to liquify that much of the rest of our core? ... And this makes more sense than pressure and friction?

Re: everything in this thread- Context. The bible has a lot of stories about people making bad decisions. Not everything in there is a commandment. Fear not what can harm the body but can not destroy the soul.... Is not a threat to fear God to avoid hell. Context. Also, the concept of "hell" in the first place is a mistranslation. Yes, sinners from Jerusalem were pitched into the never-ending fires of gehenna.... Which is not an afterworld torture.... Gehenna was the valley used as a landfill. Those unworthy of a proper burial (murderers and whatnot) were simply thrown into the dump they assumed would burn forever.

You can tell when a person has no valid points when the best point they can make is a baseless insult. Yes, the concept that some sort of being (probably the one who said he did it) played some role in how the universe formed. Whether he set some chain reaction that began the big bang or used any other method to manipulate energy to form matter.... It's a possible cause. The big bang is inherently causeless because the theory postulates that all matter/energy/time/space came from this source.... And then science has no explanation of what this source is that created everything or how it functioned or where it came from.... Only that it is a source which could not have conformed with our understanding of math and physics. ....thus the big bang is a nearly identical idea of a miraculous universal creation event.... Except that it makes additional assumptions with no basis whatsoever. ... Also, if a single explosion sent all matter into motion, the conservation of angular momentum would cause all matter to rotate in the same direction. ....look at our own solar system for a minute or two and you'll see why a single explosion seems unlikely.

Contradictions within churches aren't the same as contradictions within scripture or the faith itself. Christianity is most definitely not black and white. The overarching message is summed up in the book of Matthew where someone asks which commandment is the greatest (im an attempt to trap Jesus in some dichotomy that could then be disproven, thus calling him into question. Jesus' responce was that two commandments were the foundation of all law. Love God and love your fellow man. All Christian law is based upon these guidelines and are subjective.... Only these two laws take priority over all other things. Sure, there are people who go against this teaching in the name of that teaching.... That makes them wrong.... Not the scripture they misuse. Likewise, there are people who use good science to support ridiculous claims because they've taken reasonable evidence and distorted it to the extent of claiming that the earth is hollow or flat, etc. These people with whom most would disagree don't invalidate science itself.... Only that they've misinterpreted science. Same logic applies for people who takes a scripture about love and uses it as an excuse to breed hatred.

Noob question here... I get all the other steps, and on this one you're just hitting each piece with a square root..... How are you getting from 1+I to (1+i+i-1)?

I'll do some doodling then when I get off work. Nothing's broken today, so I need something to occupy myself.

Btw, "unicorn" does not necessarily mean the magical beast invented in Europe long after the bible. This was likely the name of a single horned rhinoceros, but is also sometimes translated as "auroch", referring to an African cow who's horns look fused together.

Aye, I'm definitely a believer that gravity is 2-ways. The earth pulls me down with a force of 150 pounds.... I pull the earth with a force of 150 pounds. Only reason I move more than it is because its inertia is bigger than mine. Likewise the earth orbits the sun.... But the sun does orbit the earth.... A bit. Thank you for your input.

More dyslexia.... Sqrt of sqrt would be 4th rather than 3rd root. Cubic root of -1 is definitely -1, but the 4th root of -1 is the square root of I... Not third. Knew I was off. Still if -1 is it's own 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc. Root, it would stand to reason that the even roots would repeat, thus sqrt I would be I. Anywho... So if sqrt I is the formula listed by halfwit.... What would it's sqrt be? Since the odd roots of -1 repeat, wouldn't the evens? Or do the even roots diverge while the odd roots repeat.... And if so, how could that be possible? I'm not doubting the geometry.... But this is a situation where the geometry seems counterintuitive (unless I'm just missing something obvious.)

I've seen the logic for that, but it seems like faulty reasoning like the proof that .999=1. The processes add up... But the logic doesn't hold in that it implies that the number you stated would be the cubic root of -1.... Do you disagree that -1^3=-1?

I've always been drawn to impossibilities, which is why I so enjoy the concept of I as the square root of -1... But I just thought to question what sqrt(I) is. Now, I've always loved math, but I never had the patience for the tedious homework necessary to make it into higher math classes... But when I searched for the answer, I was dissatisfied. According to the internets sqrt(I) is sqrt+/-(1/2). My problem is the insinuation that I=+/-(1/2). No? The thing about 1 is that if x>1, x^2>x. And if x<1, x^2<x. So "I" must be right on this magic Li'l circle where x^2=x, who h can only be 1.... If on some wonky imaginary number line. I could see if sqrt(I)= -1.... That makes perfect sense because -1 is clearly the cubic root of -1. Sqrt 1/2 is not the cubic root of -1. This is blasphamy and madness. So, am I making an elementary mistake, or is what I read on the internet an evil communist plot designed to torment me?

To answer the original question: how much do you love math? Answer: to an extent I am prohibited from explaining due to the terms of use of this forum.

Psychosematic dyslexia.

Gosh darn it, I'm retarded. It was supposed to be "no greater than 0.33" ... not "larger than .34." As long as U is smaller than 1/3... then 1<3U ... I told that joke to my wife, and she said I should try to pick up ladies at the bar with it. She said she'd like to see that. Apparently it was charming and women would have to be great fools not to reward such a thing with physical affection.