Leaderboard

This is getting ridiculous, look, if God wanted publicity it would do some impossible shit that can be verified and tested; it doesn't so it can't. I think it's about time you stop invading multiple threads, with even a tenuous link to religion, with this unfathomable drivel. Please please, please...

Here's the problem with this. Anyone who has honestly delved into the scientific theory behind evolution would NOT be a "lifelong doubter". Also, the reasons those questions "keep nagging at" you is because you keep rejecting the best supported explanations for them, and for some reason refuse to honestly study the theory. You've come to prefer your imagined role as a skeptic, not realizing that true skeptics don't spend their whole lives on the fence.

If you jump into any vehicle that is moving at a great velocity relative to you, you will likely die rather horribly as you strike surfaces. If you board a train while it is not moving and it accelerates, you accelerate with it and you gain momentum relative to the earth but equal to that of the train(as a function of mass of course). If you jump up your momentum will remain the same. If you jump up while the train is accelerating, the train will gain momentum relative to you... You might again strike a surface... Although probably not fatally. Motion is relative! Rotational and orbital motion are self referencing and the momentum is angular momentum.

Why the desire for blurry vision? You''ll get plenty of that when you are older.

They only make passing reference in this paper to some of the techniques used to eliminate false results. But there have been large numbers of papers released before which go into great details on how signals are identified, the multiple methods used to eliminate noise, extraneous signals and false positives, and so on. The idea that someone could spot an error by looking at a noisy JPG is laughable. It is up there with the "face on Mars" and "Jesus in my toast" stories.

Brutally Honest Logos.

Isn't that a little 'misleading' though. ;-) If it is a totally different situation (i.e. they have Palestinians on their very close boarder that are know for trying to blow them up) then why equate it to the USA?

When you don't know what you're talking about, even the best current explanations would be unclear, and those who insist on using them might seem dogmatic about it (if I was completely ignorant about chemistry, I would be unclear about the properties of short chain hydrocarbons, and the gas station attendant screaming at me about it while I light my cigar might seem dogmatic). Unfortunately, this sometimes makes a person resentful of other's knowledge, and they make up "answers" to take its place. Doubly unfortunate, because this kind of ignorance can only be cured by learning, and making up your own answers is the opposite of that.

Since you're the only one in this thread that thinks it's misleading, not to mention it's off topic, perhaps you're wrong.

No one said you did. What are these claimed correlations? So what? That doesn't make it science. Perhaps you are deluded. Nature can be your religion, I suppose. It makes as much sense as any other basis for religion. A kind of pantheism, perhaps. But how can a process or body of knowledge be a "language". That makes no sense. That is probably because you don't know anything about it. (I am puzzled how something can be both unclear and dogmatic, though.) That is not a scientific question. (Unless you define the word "nature" in some way that makes it testable.) That is easier. If it follows the scientific method; if it is basically developing testable ideas, then it counts as science. It is always true. That is the definition of zero. If it doesn't correspond to reality, then it isn't science. Or not good science, anyway.

The angles and ensuring precise 22.5 degrees took some scrap pieces to fine tune. For the other cuts I usually make sure I am within 1/16 of an inch. That often requires some chiselling to fine tune the joints. For squaring up each side I used a tape measure diagonally from corner to corner.

Hello Raider5678, Cap'n Refsmmat, I really agree with the idea but it's going to be difficult to keep things in check by an objective admin I presume that specialises in the topic. What I am referring to is if you don't organise teams with limited numbers, people will just voice their arguments many times, I suspect without any evidence base. If the question is: Is global warming real? If on one side 100 uneducated people give answers like: (all real quotes by the way) And on the other, 2-3 people who actually base their opinion on observational evidence, data and other boring stuff and nerdspeak. Then I'm sure it won't be too productive. If you want this to differ from a normal thread, we should somehow decide on 2 teams or 3 people lets say that we will pick in advance and make a locked thread to all other people who are not part of this debate. (spectators) Of course, all this sounds like a lot of work for the admins. But I would really like to see that.

I am confused now - how exactly is it misleading? The headline says he left his gun in a toilet. He actually DID do this, so how is it misleading anyone? I don't see the point or why or how this is misleading at all. Maybe I should read the whole article, but really I can't be bothered. The headline says it all. It doesn't claim he was right or wrong in his support for arming teachers.... it just factually states that he left his gun in a bog somewhere like a dick. So, how was it misleading again? They do over here. I made the mistake once of using the pupils corridor loo just before a class when I was supply teaching some time back. I was cheered on and given much encouragement the whole way through my visit by about 30 pupils outside shouting "Go on Sir, squeeze it out!" and Go on Sir, you can do it, squeeze it out and snip it off"... and other such encouraging comments thrown in with some random insults and suggestions that I wash my hands before class etc... being honest I found it very amusing - I am far too immature to be a proper teacher. lol.

Predetermined and predestined are different. (I think this is right - maybe I should look them up in the dictionary to check) If you plan that you are going to assemble all of the parts of a 747 correctly next month then the plane that will be built is predetermined by the set of plans you are working from. i.e. it is predetermined that the plane will be a 747 (because the plan says so, so IF you follow the plan then the plane will be a 747). It is predetermined because you have decided that the 747 is what is to be built. It is NOT however predestined! You do not know if the assembler will die, or the plant explodes or is bombed, etc... there are many unknown factors that you could put in that put the probability of the 747 being built between 0 and 1. IF it gets built it WILL be a 747 as that is predetermined by the plans and the decisions made to build a 747, but you could not know for sure that it is predestined - how could you? With the chemistry - IF Hydrogen meets Oxygen under the right conditions it WILL react to make water. This WILL happen so the out come is pre determined. You can say that the out come WILL be water IF they meet. Whether or not they actually meet has nothing to do with it - nothing is predestined (or nothing can be proven to be predestined or not ayway). It isn't random. Mutations are random - but the selection of which get to survive and reproduce is not random.

A plane can land with no engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider Losing an engine isn't isn't anything new. In fact most multiple engine aircraft are designed to work around this problem. All aircraft have a distance/elevation ratio, so the crew will usually be able calculate landing spots. The more altitude a plane has, the further/longer it may fly. The worst possible time to lose an engine is shortly after takeoff, when all the power is needed. If the power is halved, the plane may fall below it's designed aeronautic stall speed.

Its more akin to cutting a coin in two. Finding out if your half is heads or tails, tells you the other.

Considering that time is a temporal dimension which is inseparable from spacial dimensions I think it doesn’t make much sense asking what it is without context. If put to the wall I would answer that space which is volume and not some „real thing” has 3 spacial dimensions which describe it and Time has its arrow which describes it so its not some „real thing” as well - we would have an equally hard time describing what width, height or lenght is. Acording to relativity, both the spacial dimensions and the temporal dimension play predictible game with matter/energy so it would make sense to me to treat time on equall terms with the other dimensions...at least then, it becomes clearer what time is.

Just as a fun-fact not all galaxies have super-massive black hole in the centre. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A2261-BCG

Thats good to hear. You will need to start trying to draw rational conclusions from the discussion and stop developing new meaning to words and concepts to convince people otherwise. You also need to stop contradicting yourself, you don’t get to say that you „finally understood the God of science” and then claim that you never said that science is a religion. Since you’re not trolling, maybe you should start understanding what is being said in this thread, for starters read Eise’s posts again and respond...coherently.

This is the Newtonian view: that gravity is a force (inherently) associated with mass, in the same way the electric/magnetic forces are associated with charge. (We have an alternative model now, which I will talk about in a moment) Also, note that an inverse square law means that gravity extends for infinity (but with a decreasing effect). This means that the mass of a single star, for example, becomes insignificant at some distance but the mass of a whole galaxy of stars might still have a measurable effect. That is sort of correct but could be misinterpreted. The difference is that you can get closer if the radius is smaller. There is no difference in the actual gravity from two objects of the same mass. So if you had two objects with the same mass but different densities, then at the same distance the gravity would be the same. For example, if the Sun suddenly turned into a black hole, it would have no effect on the Earth's orbit. (But it would get very cold and dark!) There is, as you say, potential energy inherent in the gravitational field (because energy needs to be expended to move something higher) but there is no transfer of transmission of energy between objects (I don't think that is what you meant but, as lawyers say: "for the avoidance of doubt"). Yes. But the occasions when matter is converted to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation) are pretty rare and insignificant on a grand scale. And the conversion of energy to matter (e.g. pair production) is even rarer. The conversion between mass and energy is more common; e.g. fusion in stars. True, but I doubt this is measurable (off the top of my head - perhaps we should work it out ...) Electric and magnetic fields are just two aspects of the more general electromagnetic field. Electromagnetic radiation is the propagation of changes in the field. The reason why light, for example, is affected by gravity and a magnetic field isn't, is because it is moving. (A better explanation of this is possible with the "other" explanation of gravity I mentioned before...) Magnetism is due to the movement of electric charges. The force between two electric charges follows an inverse square law (like gravity) and so extends forever. As you say, because a magnet is a dipole, the force follows an inverse cube law (and also extends forever). If you could have a magnetic monopole, it would have an inverse square law. I think that statement is too general to be useful. Energy is not a thing that exists by itself, it is a property of things. I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" in this statement. It sounds like you might be thinking of electric charge? The gravity of a spherically symmetrical object (a good approximation for the Earth) can be considered to come from the centre. So if the all the mass of the Earth were at the centre, or all concentrated in a thin shell at the surface, we would not see any difference. So the modern view (if 100 years counts as "modern") is that gravity is caused by the curvature of the geometry of space-time. And that curvature is caused by the presence of mass (or energy). Lets try an analogy. Imagine two people who start walking parallel to one another but a few feet apart. If they are on a flat plane, then there will be no change in the distance between them. For the sake of this analogy, lets call the distance between them "space" and the direction they are travelling "time" (so they are walking into the future at a steady pace). Now, instead of walking on a flat plane, they are on the surface of the Earth, in the Arctic, walking towards the North Pole. As they move towards the pole (into the future) they get closer together. There is not force pushing them together, it is just the nature of the curved geometry of the surface of the Earth. Now, simple extend that analogy to four dimensions and it will all make sense! And this is why light, for example, is affected by gravity: it is travelling in the equivalent of a straight line in curved space-time. You might ask, "why does mass cause the geometry of space-time to curve?" And I guess the only answer is, "that is the definition of mass." Science doesn't really deal with the ultimate "why" questions. Newton refused to guess what might cause the force between two masses; it is just there. That will probably just raise more questions but I hope it helps... The energy to accelerate something to the ground, comes from the fact you have to use energy to lift it up in the first place. So, being on the ground is a lower energy state but there is no energy transfer due to gravity itself. It doesn't require a source of energy to maintain a static gravitational field. In the same way, it doesn't require any energy to maintain a static magnetic field. A magnet doesn't use up its "power" by being attracted to things.

He was fired by the Right, called a slime ball by the Right, labelled a leaker by the Right, and POTUS was just claiming yesterday that Comey broke the law so there is a chance the Right may demand Comey be investigated. All the Left did was lament about the time of an announcement. The Right actively tried to hijack Comey's investigation while he was in office and have since taken his career from him and actively worked to soil his his reputation. Degree matters. To the degree that it impacts Comey's life and the FBI as an organizations the Left vs Right's objections and treatment of Comey exist of separate scales.

Is length a real thing or just a concept? Whatever your answer to that is, is the same answer for time. I think it's real and a concept. (by real I mean not an illusion, and not fake)

You didn't read the full link? https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/006/index.html Examples of Falsifiable Statements No alien spaceships have ever landed in Roswell New Mexico. Find just one spaceship and the statement is disproven. An exhaustive elimination of possibilities is not needed. Just one spaceship will do it. This critter (just pulled from Loch Ness) is a fish. Just one observation --- "Uh, it has fur all over it." --- is enough to disprove this statement, so it is falsifiable. How to Tell if Something is Falsifiable In most cases a falsifiable statement just needs one observation to disprove it. A Statement that is not falsifiable usually needs some sort of exhaustive search of all possibilities to disprove it. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This may help to answer your question...only 7.5 minutes long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8 Simply some supernatural excuse to short circuit scientific understanding and continued research.

Sean Simpson, a teacher at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has spoken in favor of gun control efforts and said he might be open to the idea of carrying a gun in class. Now, he's been arrested after leaving his Glock 9 mm pistol in a bathroom over the weekend. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/12/601871820/stoneman-douglas-teacher-is-arrested-after-leaving-gun-in-bathroom-stall

I wasn't. He asked about the psyche of students who have to live in an environment of constant threat. Israeli students live in an environment of constant threat. I wasn't equating it to the USA. Very clever though....+1

Again, provide a quote or a citation. IMO you're not adding anything to this discussion, but I'm realizing asking you to provide evidence of your statements is not going to work because you won't. So I'll stop replying to these.

You also didn't quote or name them. The demand for citation assumes your post was about them. Ironically that aligns with the sentiment of your post.

Follow the link, there are answers to all the questions, find the error, I will be very grateful if you put me on the right path. I do not want to waste my time on delusions. http://www.spbgu.ru/forums/index.php?s=7508ff0db43c4d8fd53c510b9451235a&showtopic=53992

How could anything be outside Nature (if any God could exist)? Any of them could exist without space? Space is part of Nature. The image of God in humans mind evolves as one senses what is plausable eventually with technologically in our future. The wonderings will never give a perfect answer so they can not be evidence. You can not blame humans to think about it when it is in our culture (can the kid see something in tv without the intensive "promotion" of technology...) Science is a tool for Understanding Nature. Science has tools for measuring nature. Religion is part of Nature. Science has no tools (yet) to measure Religion related information. i.e: religions are not (yet) science. I wonder if we could meet God (any form of advanced intelligence) would that not falsify basically everything in the religions while would prove only one thing, the existence of higher intelligences. Would such senario change the perception of science for the masses looking for evidence about god in religions. Mixing religion with science is like to recognize that there is a informational connection between a stone age bow and the falcon heavy. Not to mention: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifical_Academy_of_Sciences Which does not really change the rate of analogy in my metaphore... Could you detail this thought? How could I imagine something outside nature? Do you have some evidence? 50 years ago we did not see planets around distant stars. Still that did not place plausable planets outside nature.

Nothing can exist outside the Laws of Nature. God may could be the laws of nature itself without any higher level of presentation but that beyond the laws of nature.... that seems impossible. How could I call an advanced immortal conscious intelligence?

Obviously not. But if you are using "connection" in that vague sense, then your statement is so completely pointless that it becomes meaningless. On that basis my cat has a connection with science. The rocks in my garden have a connection with science. If, by your definition of the word, everything has a connection with science then saying that "religion has a connection with science" is pointless and meaningless. You have, once again, chosen to use words in a non-standard way that makes any discussion impossible.

This is a complete non-sequitur. It is impossible to have a coherent discussion with you. You just post random unconnected thoughts.

Please provide a quote where someone said this. Please provide a quote where someone said this. Please provide a quote where someone said this.

On this we disagree. I think phenomenas as religion, love, hate, motivation, performance etc. are digitally scaleable attributes (information). See a bit with the economists eye. Everything is data. Everything is information. You can recognize that or you do not count with some part of it. Than you have incomplete theories with a lot of uncertainty. 90% is enough to start with. 100% never can be i.e we will always miss some part of the information.

Exactly. It's my assertion he's deliberately being misleading to forward his narratives. One that suggests we all want to take away their guns, another that muddies waters and yet another to singularly dismiss others from the discussion. Yet his stance others being misleading is unassailable. Immediately defaulting to "quote me where I said that" on the same pages where he said it, isn't discussion. It's belligerence. No wonder the discussion spirals downward from there.

We can express with mathematics anything. Space time enegy matter and Information. This makes mathematics an universal languege, it has points which ones are universally recognisable as same like the sense of nothing and everything and the ever evolving but most likely finite universe). 1*0=0 you can not prove while 1/0=1 i always can prove. The definition of zero would be more like: 0*0=0,0 Space (time) itself if some would like to recognize it. 4D

Now you've resorted to removing me from the discussion, again. That one fails. try another angle, spin or off topic comment.