Leaderboard

What characteristic of these people would you be studying, and what would your methodology be? And how do characteristics of people relate to the ontological existence or non-existence of a deity, or its characteristics? I wasn’t referring to the text itself, I was referring to the way people interpret it. Why are you engaging in it, then? If you are fully convinced of the veracity of your own beliefs, then it should make no difference whatsoever what anyone else thinks, and there is no need for any debates. Yet you are here trying to argue your points in front of an audience that doesn’t share your worldview, and never will. The Christian God is a learned and acquired concept - you learn of it and about it from other people, or from written texts. It’s external information, not intrinsic experience. Had you grown up in an environment where that external information was absent, the concept you now believe in so strongly would never even have occurred to you. God, as the concept is understood in Christianity, is a mental, social, historic, and cultural construct.

Yes. Happy Birthday Yusef, and may Cyclical Theory apply!

The Sun is mostly Hydrogen/Helium in 4/1 ratio. Even in 5 billion years, it will be mostly Hydrogen. The problem is that fusion takes place in the core, so while there will be plenty of Hydrogen, the heavier fusion products accumulate in the core. These heavier products ( deuterium, helium, lithium, beryllium, carbon, etc. all the way up to iron ) require higher and higher temperatures, or kinetic energies, to overcome the separation and allow fusing. The temps cause the expansion. The only way to keep the temps from increasing is to remove the heavier elements accumulating in the core, so that lighter, cooler fusing Hydrogen, outside the core, could fall in to take their place. If you can think of a way to do that, you can extend the life of the sun until it is too light, and can't supply the pressure required to produce Hydrogen burning temperatures.

If that is from the introduction to differential calculus I gave you two weeks ago … 1 - I would have thought you'd be further along by now. 2 - At every point on the curve of the function, you can draw a tangent line, such that 1 point ( only ) is common to both. The slope of that tangent line, at that point, is equivalent to the derivative of that function ( with respect to its variable ), at that point. This allows you to have the slope/derivative at a single point, as opposed to F(x1)-F(x2)/x1-x2, which gives you an 'average' over the multiple points included in between the two values of x. 3 - Points on the line/curve of a function can represent a lot of things, or, none at all. 4 - I'm glad you're asking questions, and not making assertions.

! Moderator Note For this reason, staff sometimes lets some folks hammer on far past what we might allow ordinarily. Side-by-side examples of modern reasoning and Iron Age wishful thinking may hopefully speak to future skeptics. We appreciate the pain and suffering the membership is forced to bear in this regard.

Silly me. I missed those.

If I were to try a model for what you seek, I would look for inspiration in ideas like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribozyme From the point of view of theoretical physics: Microscopic information is conserved. So information does not need to be generated. It's there. So-called coarse-grained or macroscopic information is not conserved, however, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics tells us it always decreases in a closed universe. But in open systems subject to external fluxes of energy it is known to give rise to order formation, or clustering of macro-information, if you will. So the 2nd law can "go backwards" locally, so to speak. If you add a principle of replication (structures appear and disappear, but give rise to structures similar to themselves) but with small differential changes between replications, you've laid the groundwork for explanation of this astonishing illusion of design without a designer. So we actually already know the answer to,

The longer one? Or the shorter one? Or one directly into the page? Just sayin'

Joigus may be many things, but I don't think "fool" is on the list. On the other hand you condemn him for saying which is a paraphrase of Jeremiah 5:21 ‘Hear this now, O foolish people, Without understanding, Who have eyes and see not, And who have ears and hear not:

In theory. There is the Star Lifting concept along these lines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_lifting Isaac Arthur did a good video on it.

You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.

I struggle sometimes with my refusal to give up on the humanity of others; to abandon hope that the right combination of the right words will somehow resonate or break through. In the end, it too frequently becomes a mild form of masochism. I also struggle sometimes... nay, often! ... with my patience, something I’ve long since lost with this thread, but not necessarily with this poster.

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=install+the+package+within+the+Pycharm+environment. The first hit on google returns a guide for: "Install, uninstall, and upgrade packages—PyCharm"

I have asked you politely for a simple example, posted here. A moderator has given you a specific instruction to follow the rules with your postings yet you continue to defy and argue with the rules., rather than complying with them. and do so in your other threads as well. I have formally reported this. For your information, anything you refer to on another site may be removed or changed by that other site by the time another member her come to try to read it. This could happen after 5 minutes, 5 hours or 5 years. This forum prides itself that this ensures that, if it is still here in 5 years time, a serious scientific thread will still be intelligible even if the other site has long gone. Scienceforums has maintained this reputation over nearly 20 years, whilst many other sites have definitely bit the dust or changed.

It is entirely possible that , as a result of "taking back control", we will lose the Falklands. This was a good thing, but we threw it away in order to change the colour of our passports.

! Moderator Note “mathematics is a discipline” One could also say mathematics is a language, with its own version of syntax, vocabulary and rules for spelling, etc. In order to have useful discussion you can’t make up your own words and definitions. You have to learn and use the ones everybody else is. You can’t jump into a conversation without knowing these basics. This concept also applies to math. Perhaps it would be better to discuss more fundamental concepts first. Plenty of people have stepped up to try and help but it’s frustrating when there is such a barrier to communication

Makus Henke has remarked; "Photons have no rest mass, so according to your expression, the inner product of photon momentum with itself is zero. Since the inner product can vanish only if the two vectors are either perpendicular, or one of the vectors has zero magnitude, that means that according to you the photon has no net momentum." Four momentum of a photon[real photon] is zero. This is the mass-shell condition for the real photon.But the spatial part of the photon momentum is not zero Indeed, E^2-c^2|p|^2=m_0^2c^2[m_0 is the rest mass] (m_0 gamma)^2 c^2 -(m_0 gamma()^2=m_0^2c^2 The rest mass m_0 for the photon is zero . WE cannot cancel zero from the two sides. We simply write (m_0 gamma)^2 c^2 -(m_0 gamma()^2=0 For the photon m_0 gamma is of the form zero * infinity. We have E^2=c^2|p|^2 or E=|p|c From quantum mechanics E=hc/lambda |p|c=hc/lambda or,|p|=h/lambda,a non zero value Markus Henke has remarked "Just repeating the same thing again does not make it any less wrong. " If he finds anything wrong with my paper he should point to it in a specific manner. So far I have refuted everything has has considered incorrect with my paper

Markus Henke: remarked "Non-sequitur. If you arrive at some kind of “discrepancy”, then that means you did something wrong, plain and simple. Tensor calculus is not a “theory”, it’s a mathematical framework that has been extensively developed, and is fully self-consistent." The important point is that the conflict exists as projected in the paper. Can he refute the contradiction shown in the paper by finding errors with my calculation? It is clear that Markus Henke has has not found any error with my calculations which,incidentally, are not of a lengthy nature. If standard theory happens to be correct everywhere, as Markus Henke believes in, he should be able to point directly to errors in my calculations. If he really such found errors he would have been vocal about them.

Makus Henke has remarked; "Photons have no rest mass, so according to your expression, the inner product of photon momentum with itself is zero. Since the inner product can vanish only if the two vectors are either perpendicular, or one of the vectors has zero magnitude, that means that according to you the photon has no net momentum." Norm of the four momentum of a photon[real photon] is indeed zero. This is the mass-shell condition for the real photon.But for the spatial part of the photon ,norm of momentum is not zero[this portion in italics is a revision over the last post] Indeed, E^2-c^2|p|^2=m_0^2c^2[m_0 is the rest mass] (m_0 gamma)^2 c^2 -(m_0 gamma()^2=m_0^2c^2 The rest mass m_0 for the photon is zero . WE cannot cancel zero from the two sides. We simply write (m_0 gamma)^2 c^2 -(m_0 gamma)^2=0 For the photon m_0 gamma is of the form zero * infinity.Considering it to be a non zero finite quantity [this italized prt bis an addition to the earlier post]we have E^2=c^2|p|^2 or E=|p|c From quantum mechanics E=hc/lambda |p|c=hc/lambda or,|p|=h/lambda,a non zero value Markus Henke has remarked "Just repeating the same thing again does not make it any less wrong. " If he finds anything wrong with my paper he should point to it in a specific manner. So far I have refuted everything has has considered incorrect with my paper Quote

However many marks of years are imprinted in a member of nature, it doesn't mean that the thing was here that many years. When God made the earth, he made it as a work already in process. Science works only on the basis of assuming otherwise. God wasn't the assumption, but the axiom. Science is assuming, and ignorant people, made so by biased educators, are assenting. If you think you see by your own will you're foolish. If you see, it's a gift. If you have diligence it's a gift. If you're lazy you're a fool.

Whatever calculations science says they have of total atmospheric water are bogus; they can hardly tell if it's definitely going to rain the next day. There had already been a constant mist going up from the earth. (I know you're going to smack me for not giving your sacred scientific citation) I have to say this. I'm very impressed by your rating so far Christopher Andrew. Your Champion said you'd be hated.

Fools say such things of people of whom which they know nothing.