doG

You can't really prove the non-existence of anything and you certainly wouldn't be able to disprove the existence that is above mankind's realm of understanding, i.e. some supernatural entity. I was just trying to find a point to this thread. I agree with that.

Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility?

Wow, you're still not getting it. Theism is about the 'belief' in deities. It has absolutely nothing to do with knowing that they exist, it's only about belief. Mankind does not know that deities exist or not. Some people believe that man could never know for sure and those people are agnostic. That has nothing to do with their belief, or lack thereof, in deities.

From dictionary.com: Only a disbelief in deities is required to be atheist, not an affirmative belief that deities do not exist. If you lack the belief that they do and still concede the possibility that they may you are atheist by definition. You are either theist or not-theist, i.e. atheist. Fence sitters are atheist even if they don't want to admit it. BTW, I'll leave it to you to question dictionary.com, your own reference, since they contradict YOUR definition.

Abuse of a term doesn't change what it means. Like at how much the term 'agnostic' has been abused by fence sitting atheists that simply don't want to admit they're atheist. Atheist literally means not-theist, nothing more, nothing less.

atheist is to theist as asynchronous is to synchronous. The 'a' is simply a 'not' modifier.

I simply see the term atheist to mean not-theist. Theism is simply defined as one who believes in the existence of a god or gods, by a consensus of definition or not. Any lack of belief therefore makes one not-theist.

Same here, same reasons. You're atheist. Either you have an affirmative belief that there is/are one or more gods or you are atheist, period.

You need to look up the meaning of 'strawman' there strawman... P.S. Yes I'm a skeptic and yes, I happen to hold 2 patents so skeptics can indeed be inventors!

You can't throw 10s of 1000s of attempts at a box that uses a lockout after several failed attempts. Sometimes you can backdoor the server though that the users account is on and hack the security file where the passwords are stored. Rainbow cracks are often employed with this method. Other methods may include forcing a buffer overflow in the server to insert a background process or utilizing something like a sql injection attack to get the user logon form to misbehave. Like I said earlier, these people have a lot more practice than you at doing this. There are a vast variety of methods that may be employed and most will not involve shotgunning a brute-force number of passwords to get through.

The question here though is not what the velocity will be an instant later but what is the velocity this very instant, i.e. is the object 'stopped' when v=0?

BTW, do note that this is a graph of the piston's motion, velocity or acceleration relative to crank rotation and it shows the pistons velocity is 0 at TDC and BDC. No, he's saying that Swansont said: This in effect raises the question if a body in continuous motion can come to a stop. In the case of the piston you actually have an oscillating motion like a load bouncing on a spring or a pendulum. Both of these are also examples of continuous motion systems but can it be said that they 'stop' as they change direction?

I copied and pasted the statement, "Note again that at TDC and again at BDC, the piston velocity is zero, because the piston reverses direction at those points, and in order to change direction, the piston must be stopped at some point." directly from your link, from about halfway down the page. I will also point out that it says, "Note again...." because it is not the first time it is pointed out on that page. Now, your link clearly states in black and white that the piston stops at BDC and TDC. Those words are directly copied from your link. Now why on Earth do you think that your link to a page that clearly says that the piston stops would be accepted as support that the piston does not stop? Do you really want the rest of us to believe that you cannot see the contradiction here between what your link says and what you say it says?

I didn't rearrange anything and any claim that I did is a lie. I simply pointed out that your own link contradicts your own position and threw your childish post about remedial high school classes back in your face! It's not my fault your link contradicts you and its not my fault you didn't read it. Yes, technically everything on Earth is under constant gravitational acceleration so I assume it's your position that nothing ever truly stops relative to anything else on Earth because everything is constantly accelerated downwards by gravity. Now, do you agree with your link that the piston stops at BDC and TDC or do you now think your link is in error?

They've had more practice than you. Not only that, they didn't learn their knowledge in open, public forums like this one but through hidden places on the web. That's enough of a hint for now. Continue your search and if your are good enough you will find the answers you are looking for.

ROFL, I gave you 2 numbers that must have stumped you. You didn't even realize they were in hex. Then I converted them to octal for you and finally Daedalus converted them to base 10 for you. You imply your own math knowledge is questionable.

Did you also happen to notice the part where your link says, "Note again that at TDC and again at BDC, the piston velocity is zero, because the piston reverses direction at those points, and in order to change direction, the piston must be stopped at some point." Maybe you could see if they offer reading. It might help you from posting links that contradict yourself.

Consider 2 examples: 1. A ball is tossed vertically straight up into the air. At the apex of its travel it's velocity will hit zero as the acceleration changes from positive to negative. At the apex a and v with both equal 0. 2. A ball is launched in a parabolic arc like a cannonball fired from a cannon. At the apex of its travel its velocity will be continuously greater than zero but its acceleration will change from positive to negative. V will not equal 0 until the ball lands and comes to rest so a and v will never equal 0 simultaneously until the ball comes to rest. IMO, the motion of the piston is similar to example 1 because of its axial travel in the piston bore. This becomes very evident if you place a dial indicator in the spark plug bore and bring the piston to top dead center in order to mechanically align the camshaft. You find there is a small amount of travel of the crankshaft, 1°-2°, where there is no change in the piston's position. This is caused by the change in angle of the connecting rod relative to the axis of the bore as the crankshaft moves across top dead center. During that period of travel you could consider the piston stopped.

A skeptic is simply someone who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual. It has nothing to do with the imagination of inventors and creators.

Nothing made me turn to atheism. I am a skeptic and don't believe in anything for which there is no proof. There is no proof of deities so there is no reason to believe in them. If everyone were the skeptic they should be there would be no debates about deities at all.

IMO, Just because the acceleration is continuous does not mean that it doesn't pass through zero. There is an instant when acceleration goes from positive to negative as the direction changes. At this point acceleration would be zero as would the velocity at that instant, i.e. a=v=0. At that instant in time the piston could be considered to be stopped.

Mine reflects the thought that went into choosing a username...

Why? They're just numbers. All you asked for was two numbers without the technical details. I even gave you the same numbers in octal. I'm assuming if the units are meaningless the base probably is too.

Unicodes?

Typical religious conservative...no surprise.