Robittybob1

So what do you think makes the difference when it changes direction?

Are these currents always heading toward the center of a mass (COM)? For gravity is toward the COM so are the neutrinos somehow directed toward the center of randomly shaped objects?

Why do you say there is a single equation when the vectors applied by the conrods appear to be different for the master and non master pistons?

So it requires very little force to make it move. Can you change the direction it rotates?

Well then it would be easy to prove . Place your hands over it and don't stare at it. Then if it was hot hands, which certainly is a possibility if the folded paper was some sort of turbine shape, it would spin without the need of staring at it.

That is thought in my definition. It is a bit of mental effort involved. There was an additional question in my previous post could you answer that too please?

Folded paper! OK what thought processes do you go through to make it spin, for I presume it isn't always spinning? Or trembling as in your second experiment. Is the folded paper then placed on a needle point? Like it isn't just placed on the table top as it is, is it?

That seems a massive proportion to Helium. I looked at a problem like this once before and there end up being too many variables.

If someone else has posted your subsequent post won't be added to a former one.

That was a new word apotheosis! Google definition: "apotheosis əˌpɒθɪˈəʊsɪs noun 1. the highest point in the development of something; a culmination or climax. "his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career" synonyms: culmination, climax, crowning moment, peak, pinnacle, summit, zenith, apex, acme, apogee, high point, highest point, height, high water mark "his appearance as Hamlet was the apotheosis of his career" 2. the elevation of someone to divine status. "death spared Pompey the task of having to account for the apotheosis of Caesar"" Which meaning did you intend the word to have for it didn't seem to tie in with the thread title?

Have you tried the formulas given above, for that is what I'd do? You would also have to adjust the velocity of the atoms based on their kinetic energy. Then see if the escape velocity can be reached or exceeded for that more massive planet.

We are discussing Werner not Strange.

Is that "8 Earth masses" all rock?

Two things I felt were helpful were his admission that none of the larger mammals were found along with the dinosaurs and the acceptance of geological time (if we are right about that too). After listening to many videos etc on the evolution - creation debate I am intrigued by the Cambrian Explosion. I will set up a new thread to discuss the forum's views on this period.

I will have to read his website to see what it is like. Thanks.

That seems that your view is rather biased. I am thinking how can a Christian come across to a view of evolution without losing their faith? Werner's finding assists this process in my view. As you may know I consider myself a Christian with evolutionary views. So I would prefer if others could come across to this viewpoint. That certainly shows me what you fear but I suggest from a young Christian's point of view some of the division is removed by his photographic "research".

What difference does it matter if he asks a question. It was whether his exploration supported that question or not and in at least in the video it did show there were plenty of modern species that were not found along with the dinosaurs. OK he then proposes some reason why this maybe so but there was no evidence presented. How can they be "the same"? For how do you propose they be judged the same? DNA analysis is out of the question. His criteria was looks substantially alike (my words, not a quote). The reason I don't just let it go is that I do feel he has made it easier for a creationist to at least consider some aspects of evolution. I certainly feel he is unlikely to change a person's view the other way around. So it sounds like you also agree his view does not polarize the debate by "saying nothing of relevance to evolution or creation".

I heard the guy talking so I'd never say "he didn't say anything". So rather than being so cryptic could you explain what you mean please? You could be implying meaningless talk. Don't think for a minute I agree with him for I think his test applied to falsify evolution was not adequate. Like even if the exact same species were found with the dinosaurs as exist today that does not negate evolution IMO.

So are you saying somewhere in the video he says something to the effect "they not only looked the same, but that they were the same"? This is something easily verified. PS: I tried listening to it again but I didn't hear the words you say are there. I might have dozed off at the wrong time!

Well the host gave me the creeps more so than Carl Werner. I did not feel he (CW) was coming across as a charlatan, and I suppose his findings were valid in that there were some animals around with the dinosaurs that looked like same then as they do today. Maybe we all knew this somewhat already but he made it his point of study. Why I thought the jap maybe closing was the way he was being promoted as such a wonderful guy. It was my opinion for what it was worth.

I have watched the videos of the series several times and I have come to a conclusion that what Werner is saying has helped to shorten the divide between the creationist and the evolution views. He seems to accept time periods of millions of years rather than the thousands of years of the Young Earth philosophy. Also he doesn't say man and the dinosaurs roamed the Earth together, but unfortunately he didn't flatly deny it either. The videos were largely expressing the views of the "Origins" organisation more so than Werner's views.

true, the whole issue should have been discussed on the forum as per the rules.

Has this been proven?

I watched the videos and I think he has raised some valid points and those that know about the geological periods and paleontological naming processes need to have a look at the video(s) and explain it to us please.

depends what collective dreams mean. I once dreamt about what another person was dreaming about. and the topic was at least right.