Tres Juicy

With tighter restrictions on the speculations forum you would see more speculative threads appearing in the mainstream forums. Plus it's a good place to air your crazy ideas in the wider community - all the "what if..." questions and interesting ideas that don't fit anywhere else. It's important for science to speculate

I know, I just found it funny

If Maxwell said to jump under a bus....

Yes, but only as far as we can recognise that bias. If we don't see it, we cannot account for it

It's something that they are looking into, but it's not been confirmed. There are a few different explanations going around http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/nov/21/faster-than-light-neutrinos-doubts

Oh I see... Magic

Doesn't that make the speed of light breakable just by changing the reference frame?

Unless the machine worked and they posted the video in the past Seriously though, it hasn't been confirmed that anything can travel faster than c

You make a good point, but again this can be argued against with free will. If god gives us free will he also gives us the capacity for evil. If god then removes evil he also removes free will (at least to some extent - Why can't I choose to be evil?). One could argue that god has made the choice to allow us to learn our own lessons, having given us everything we need to eliminate evil ourselves (with the bible and whatnot). Of course being all knowing he knows things will work out fine as soon as we learn our lesson. In the same way that a parent will allow a child to make mistakes in order to learn valuable life lessons. I am certainly not trying to make a case for god, I am merely pointing out that with so much room for interpretation there is nothing that can be regarded as proof against religion. This is something that has been pondered since the first notion of god by some of the greatest thinkers of all time. If it (religion/god) were falsifiable it would have fallen apart a long time ago...

Sorry, the emition of another photon was just to describe the scenario. Let me phrase it differently: If I was driving at the speed of light with my headlights on, from my point of veiw the light travels away from me at c but in reallity in order for that to happen it must travel at 2c

Hi all, Just contemplating the speed of light... If a photon travels in direction A and is forced to emit another photon also in direction A. Then from the point of veiw of the first photon, the second photon would accelerate away from it at c. Does that mean the second photon is now travelling at 2c?

Space is where you put your matter. Without space there'd be nowhere to put anything...

Seriously, learn to use quotes, it's so hard to reply to you 100 thousand years? That doesn't sound like the bible... And yes, I don't think there would be a huge difference in diversity even that far back No. Anything is not possible - sprout wings and fly around your house if you don't believe me... That was not the question. Again I refer you to my post above: "Measure it and see if you could find a way to cram 13 million animals in there and bear in my that it had to float, so do it without stacking the animals 100 feet high" In such a short timescale it would not be possible for nature to do that on its own. Are you suggesting that humans selectively bred birds (in secret) back to the current genetic diversity we see today? And as such fits perfectly with theomatics, a blend of numerology and wishful thinking That could be the case if the numbers were not arbitrarily assigned by someone with an agenda...

You yourself said Noah was "scoffed at", how much help do you think he could have realistically obtained? Even if we use your figure of 6.5 million land animals and he manages to find 9 people to help him - each person then still needs to collect 13,000,00 animals. Implausible even if god had given a rather flexible timescale for this mamoth undertaking - don't you think? Some of these animals would have been hard to find, hard to control or simply huge and dangerous This proves nothing - a vaguely ship-shaped mark on a mountain. Just out of interest, measure it and see if you could find a way to cram 13 million animals in there and bear in my that it had to float, so do it without stacking the animals 100 feet high Show me scientific evidence then. I have never seen anything like what you are suggesting here and I doubt I ever will. I'm guessing you can't back this up Ok, but what about plants?? And the logistical nightmare thats would arise keeping everything from eating everything else and yourself Only seven species of birds survived? How would you then explain the current genetic diversity we see in modern birds? Not only that, surely if god wanted them preserved he'd be furious that you just killed one the second you came off the ark?! I refer you to the link I posted "Finally, I would like to make note of another very important statement on this last page: "It is absolutely, completely, and totally impossible to mathematically disprove theomatics." This is a straight declaration that theomatics is not falsifiable, which by definition means it is not a science. Not only that, but it has no predictive power. You arbitrarily pick which numbers are important to you, then you crop out phrases that look good, but there's no way to tell ahead of time exactly what phrases you'll find. Therefore, theomatics is completely useless. " You can't present phrenology or palm reading in a scientific debate because they are psuedoscience's and have no value, numerology falls into the category of psuedoscience as well I'm afraid...

No, you need to use [/quote*] at the end (without *) There are currently somewhere in the region of 5,000,000 species of animal alive today (conservative estimate), even if Noah had his entire life to collect them all he would fail. As for the size of the ark - even with modern ship building techniques we could not get near the size needed to fit all those animals on board - Noah would have needed a fleet of ships Not only that but whilst the animals were onboard, what would they eat? Alot of them would have had predator/prey relationships and Noah only has 2 of each. The herbivores are also screwed because god did not say "by the way Noah, better take 2 of each plant as well", as you know most plant species will not survive submerged in water for very long at all. Also the bible says that after the flood one of the first things Noah does is make a sacrifice to god. Since he only has 2 of each animal, which species did he wipe out here? To summerize, the bible says a lot of crazy stuff which is trivially falsified As for theomatics - again triviallly falsified http://www.apollowebworks.com/atheism/theomatics.html

Imagine a sealed box with a ball inside, you pump out every bit of matter apart from the ball So you have a vacuum chamber with a ball inside. If you were to shake the box around you would see that the ball is able to move freely around the space. So the space is still there - How could you possibly remove the space?? Although, an "absolute" vacuum as you've described would be very hard to create and would also be unstable. That's where you get virtual particles messing up your nice tidy vacuum

An absolute vacuum would be completely empty space, so not really a physicsl thing (more the total absence of physical things)

I think people here have proven themselves to be more than capable of abstract though. I really don't think that's the issue Don't you think we need to define what it is we're talking about here? Again, you speak of "education for technology" - What is that??

If god is all knowing/powerful then maybe the suffering you speak of is necessary. Who are you to decide what counts as necessary? My point is that whatever you present as proof can be falsified by religion because of its inherent ambiguity and the element of "magc" involved (eg: "god did it by magic")

I think this has gone a bit off topic now. Maybe it should be split?

My question was in response to your statement that religion prevents things like witch hunts Well the bible say the world is 6000 years old science says 4.5 billion... etc.... I don't see how this comparison works? Also, what do you mean by "Education for technology"?

Actually... In the interest of a fair debate I'm going to play devils advocate on this You could argue that because god gave people free will he has allowed us to make our own decisions and mistakes and cannot influence us directly without taking that away from us. It could also be said that he has given us everything we need to eliminate evil ourselves. Since evil is a consequence of human action it is no longer within his power (relinquishing power over us by giving us free will - in order for us to grow) I have children myself and I allow them to make mistakes because it is an important learning experience which (however much you might like to) you cannot deny them With this in mind the argument above becomes invalid

I think you've hit the nail on the head with this

No advertising spam please