ydoaPs

Do you know any friends who have an account? The software is free; the account costs a one-time payment. Have fun trying to find a good server if none of your friends play. Also, most mods are server-side things.

It's not actual motion; it's the illusion of motion. It's just pixels turning on and off.

No

and are directly contradictory. If they're equivalent, then they're not going to have such an extremely different result. This difference (which means they're NOT equivalent) is enormous. It means the math is most certainly different than what we use with the current theories. It means it has drastically different predictions. You have yet to give us the math or the predictions made from the math. You've given us absolutely no reason to believe you at all. No, the reason is because you can't seem to be able to put together anything coherent. You say plainly contradictory things like, "Mass and energy are equivalent, the curvature caused by mass and energy are equivalent. Mass causes inward curvature pull objects towards the source. Energy causes outward curvature pushing objects away from the source". Blatant contradictions like that are the very antithesis of "clear".

No, it's not. An electromagnetic field is caused by charge in the same sense that a gravitational field is caused by mass. The problem is that you can't. Math? Predictions? Anything even resembling evidence?

There's a typo in the graphic. The conclusion in the world immediately clockwise of the one with the red 'g' should read 'g&~g' rather than 'g'.

EM fields are caused by having energy? o.O

The EM field is your ocean. Or like an electron field.

You know that energy is a property rather than an object, right? Electro-magnetic fields have energy; they aren't energy.

What is an "energy field"?

Fields and waves aren't the same thing. Is a tsunami a ripple in a tsunami?

I don't. Descartes was a cheater in several ways. But the one appropriate here is that his radical skepticism wasn't radical enough. Hume took him to task when discussing his skepticism of the self:

How do you know?

The automated threads pointing out new blog posts neither render nor hide the html in the blog posts. It looks rather silly.

No, it won't.

Yes. Yes, it can.

The only reason science "restricts its empirical enquiry[sic] to the physical" is that Empiricism gives us no reason to do anything else. If there were a knowable supernatural, science would deal with it as well.

Thinking of it like that makes things like electron waves more intuitive given QFT.

Probably. You can apply vacuous crap to just about anything.

Any chance of us getting the rep-comment feature back? It was nice getting/giving feedback without potentially derailing a thread.

That problem would be science. Science paints us an entirely God-free picture. Nowhere in the equations that describe how the universe is there a place for God. So, it is possible that God doesn't exist. That, while it may not seem like much, is a death blow to any necessary god. 1) g⊃□g 2) ⋄~g 3) Therefore, by Modus Tollens, ~g. This works because ⋄p is defined as ~□~p. So, when we have ⋄~g, we can rewrite it as ~□~~g and then use double negation to get ~□g. Now the Modus Tollens should be fairly obvious. If your god's existence is necessary, then the current state of science says your god doesn't exist.

Yeah, like that iNow guy! We, however, can locate in the brain where ideas reside. We can even reconstruct visual, auditory, and textual experience from brain activity. The problem of non-existing referents is actually a big problem in the philosophy of language. And, like a lot of open questions, just about everyone has a different "answer" to it. "The present king of France is bald." Is that sentence true or false? There are quite a few philosophers who would say neither since there is no present King of France and the sentence thus fails to refer (since "present" is an indexical, though, one could hop in a time machine and make it true or false for those philosophers). This is actually something that happens in Anselm's Ontological Argument. He starts with the idea of God and then switches to the entity God when you're not looking.

That's not really what it is at all. There are atheists that believe in all manner of stupid things like ghosts and ESP.

Dude, how many times are you going to copy/paste the same thing on here to spam us with your website?