Didymus

What happens when an undefined variable is .34 or larger?

First, if you wan to be taken seriously, don't pluralize "math" unnecessarily. Second, that corrélation was the answer to your question. This is what Einstein meant. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. He was referring to Romans 1:25 and acknowledging that science is the study of the created universe... Science cripples itself without acknowledging the one who set forth all of reality to be discovered. Religion blinds itself by worshiping the creator, but ignoring the logic behind the creation. Both are sides of the same coin to find truth, so to decide between the two is to deny both. A dichotomy between science and religion is as faulty as rejecting math in favor of science. Knowing one increases your understanding of the other.

Space is nothing but a way to explain where matter is. Time is nothing but a way to describe the order in which events occured. Neither "exist" as a fabric that can be created, destroyed, bent, altered, or manipulated in any way. Because they don't exist beyond a way to describe things that do exist.

Yes, the fundamental flaw is that some people don't understand that there's evidence for the big band, but none for God.[/font][/color] Strictly change isn't the purpose of science, but it's the method. Religion's method is to refuse to change if at all possible. That too is a fundamental flaw You say "Science without religion is lame." It seems to walk just fine to me. What did you think that quote meant? ... And that's why I believe ins science, not math. Science is all about learning and change. There's proof for science. Math is just an arbitrary system for counting and manipulating theoretical numbers.... Meanwhile there is no proof that numbers exist in the first place. So, I believe in science, rather than math. ...get it?

Sorry, links I saw required an account before I could open the pdfs.... I'd gladly read sources, but I'm not going to jump through hoops to do so. As for your question about solar power generation effecting the Sun... The point is that, while energy is constantly transferred from one state to another.... It is also constantly being wasted and constantly being generated. A simpler illustration is dams on a stream. Yes, there is energy input to cause the water to evaporate... But there is no way that input will be affected if the rain falls directly back into the ocean vs. If that rain falls into a river with back to back turbines for 100 miles. The point is to illustrate that if you put a turbine in the water that generates a certain amount of resistance.... That resistance will have the same effect on the ocean whether the energy is being stored by charging up that battery.... Or whether energy is being wasted, if the battery is at full capacity and no energy is being stored. Resistance is resistance, whether it's a rock or a turbine. Thus, the idea that generating electricity through oceanic motion will slow the earth faster is exactly as illogical as stating that hydroelectricity sill exhaust the Sun faster because energy is being generated, and according to the impossible barrier, that has to come out of somewhere. I suggest that it does come out of somewhere.... The limitless energy constantly being generated by all massive bodies: gravity.

John... You're comfortable with saying that the big bang "doesnt defy physics, we just don't understand it yet".... But people are inherently foolish/broken for applying the same logic to a different source of a universal explosion of creation? Do you see the fundamental flaw? Also, you say that the goal of science is to change.... And I tend to disagree. Science is to find the correct answer.... Perhaps in order to find more questions.... But "change" isnt the end goal for the sake of change. Religion's purpose is to constantly increase our understanding of the source of creation... Exactly like true science. Only difference is religion has an idea about where to find the correct answer. Not to unquestioningly believe something to avoid change.... But to constantly learn from the source of all knowledge. In the words of Einstein.... Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. The point of both is to seek truth.

Moon... "the basis of the entire theory is where math breaks down".... Is -exactly- saying "we know what we're putting our faith in defies logic and physics and we have no supporting evidence.... But we believe it happened." Even very weak evidence is stronger than none at all. Documented eye-witness accounts... No matter how sceptical you are of them... Is stronger than "the big bang did it because it's the only way I can avoid a theory I don't like."

The difference? The dog will never mispronounced "math." 'MERICA! pew pew pew.

True, distance from the sun is not the only factor.... But it certainly doesn't seem to hurt. Look at a larger scale. Compare the atmospheric extremity of the four planets close to the sun against the four planets farther from the sun. Venus doesn't even begin to compare to any of the outer 4. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune's distence from the sun seems not to have hurt their capacity for atmospheric motion (harvestable wind energy) and clouds (thus evaporation based upon the planet's internal heat rather than the sun's radiation). What source of energy builds this heat? I'd wager it's the pressure of gravity in the planet's core+friction+massive insulation due to a larger atmosphere.

Direct name calling (arrogant know-it-all) is acceptable, but pointing out possible variables in a theory .... In a thread specifically opened to question barriers thought to be "impossible".... Is somehow against forum policy? If on-topic dissent is frowned upon.... What's the point of this forum? When people make logical points (such as tidal locking), I acknowledge it's validity. When people extend this to illogical conclusions (like the idea that hydro plants will burn out the sun faster or that making use of tidal energy will deplete the earth's spin faster than an equal amount of resistance without storing energy... I'd have to see evidence to support that claim beyond the unsubstantiated opinion of some dude who wants me to trust him. That's not how science works. I especially don't trust those who believe that's how science works. "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

You realize this applies equally to the big bang theory? If the universe, including space and time, was generated at the big bang, where was the singularity before space existed for it to explode I to? How long did it exist without time? The singularity had nowhere to exist, therefore Could not exist, therefore did not exist to poof the rest of the universe together.

For "exotic material" and the big bang and evolution.... How it started is, infact, an important part of thé theory. Pop-science uses the excuse all the time that these aren't matters of faith..... yet they know something happened for which there is no explanation. Sorry.... But that's faith, just like any religion. And inherently less logical because whether the universe began in a magical, physics defying explosion with a source or without a source.... No matter how mystical the source is, "nothing" causing something is less logical. And john, I'm sorry, I don't mean to attack you as a person. I know nothing about you. But it's a pretty reliable rule that when people go out of their way to harass and insult other entire groups solely based on misinformation about those groups.... There is generally something personally traumatic about that person's past. It's beyond disagreement and has turned into a personal vendetta where certain people feel they need to attack and insult anyone with a different belief structure.... Since their belief structure is so obviously superior and unquestionable that any who question it must hate freedom and kittens. We disagree... So, have a debate. Don't personally attack people cor thinking differently.... Then call foul when someone points out bow transparent your attacks are. Judge not, lest Ye be judged. Typos to be blamed on tiny phone keyboard. Camping in Oregon. My son's first campout, first amtgard event, and he took his first steps. Woot!

The new prince has bad teeth and a speech impediment.

First, yes. People displaying their hatred very often don't see it as such. Racists and bigots of all sorts don't believe themselves full of hate.... They feel justified in one way or another and can't see it as hatred, although it's quite obvious to everyone else. When you say you're demonstrating how broken everyone is with a different faith than you because of some rumor you heard about how evil people who believe differently are..... All your demonstrating is the trauma you must have gone through to build Such a phobia. As for your opinion that pastors mandate people reject all medical treatment and solely pray... You'd have to prove that.... I'm quite religious, raised by a quite religious Emt and nurse. Hard to reject medicine when that's the profession of both parents. ... If the. Hutch frowned upon the medical field, should they not have been reprimanded? Yes, a few extremists reject health care for medical reasons. There's also plenty of people out there that refuse to vaccinate their kids due to all sorts of irrational fears.... Religion not being one. Your "religion kills children" claim is pretty much dead. Next. Likewise, while there are people blindly going go church out of habit (giving everyone a bad name), there are also plenty of people who were taught the basics, questioned things.... Perhaps found a more logical congregation.... Questioned things more, then came upon the conclusion for themselves that they found the existence of a God the most logical option, based on everything they've seen. Science has no explanation for what caused the big bang to happen.... Yet, the mainstream scientific community take it on faith that something they can't begin to explain (without violating physics) must have. They can't begin to explain the first steps of evolution.... Biogenisis.... Yet science takes it on faith that this impossible thing is more likely to have happened without a cause than with one. ... There are millions of dollars in grants right now cor research on bow to most effectively use "exotic material" as a fuel source cor spacecraft.... Taking on faith that some magical material exists that has certain conflicting properties.... We have no idea if it can exist or .... But based on faith, people are throwing away fortunes.

You'll have to forgive me. Typing on my phone on a road trip in the back of a pretty full van. Yes, there are people who object to certain medical treatment for many reasons. Religious reasons being one of them. There are many other reasons. For example, Jehovah's witnesses abstain from taking blood transfusions. A lot of people have had problems with that.... But now medicine is catching up and there are over a hundred hospitals across the US who've found that doing away with transfusions leads to fewer complications, infections, and speedier recovery times. There are about a dozen transfusion free hospitals in Washington state alone. Religion objection people thought were cruel.... And finally realized was medically superior all along. Now, sometimes, transfusions are necessary as a last resort.... and most JWs would take one in an emergency.... They just don't want to risk infection for "just to be safe" transfusions when other non-blood products are medically superior than stored blood.

You asked what sort of hate I was referring to.... While demonstrating it. Yes, some people don't seek sufficient medical help and suffer for it. This happens for many reasons, and is not caused by religion. Some people also take too many drugs and suffer as much. I'd be more than willing to bet that you only take evidence selectively. First you have a false dichotomy that assumes people must cholee between prayer and medicine. Most people pico both. Second, id bet you ignore any evidence to support prayer just happens to be coinsidence. If you can't pray for God to pop up on your terms, you assume it to be evidence that prayer has no effect. Thing is, God's a bit smarter than you and doesn't have to give you what you want how you want it when you want it.

...yea.. we need to start from scratch here. Notice how the 10 commandments are written on two stones. There are two stories that can help you get a better understanding. First- in Matthew (22:36, I think) When a person asked Jesus which was the greatest commandment.... He broke it down into two basic ones. Love God. Love your neighbor. This is the foundation of all law. The first 5 commandments on the first tablet are guidlines as to how to respect God... Don't make up new ones, don't use him as an excuse for your own vanity (God wants us to blow up the other guys), follow my advice. The second is how to respect fellow people.... Don't cheat on them, steal from them, kill them, all that. All biblical law is a way to describe how to love and respect God... And how to love and respect people. 2nd, rabbi hillel said something similar, a bit later. A person came to him and said that if this rabbi could stand on one foot and teach him the entire Torah (hebrew scriptures), he would believe. Being a super troll rabbi hillel stood one one foot and said love God, and don't treat people poorly. The rest is commentary. Now, go read. .... So, that's the 10 commandments and all law in the bible. If you do something, it should be out of love. If it's not out of love, knock it off.

How to post on a forum 101: this is not an infomercial.... Don't spend an entire page prefacing how great this article is and vaguely making claim after claim about what the article proves. Spend maybe 2 paragraphs with a basic premise to demonstrate the value of the rest of the thread.... Then expand as necessary. Coming off as an advertisement makes you look bad.

While popular opinion certainly doesn't prove correctness, it would be foolish to assume that a belief in God is inherently a negative thing. ...now, fanaticism in general has lead to many wars... And many fanatics tend to be religious.... But religion itself isn't the common denominator. Most religions teach peace and mildness and modesty.... Something religious fanatics who start wars do not have.... But there are plenty of fanatics outside of religion. And the majority of the religious people out there are not fanatics. Good thread crispy bacon. For the people who are just looking for reasons to hate... Try looking at yourself and wondering why you feel that need. This is a sign of being broken.

Common factors as to why both evolution and relativity are so frequently argued against on places like youtube: Because both theories are hogwash. There is good evidence to support some very small parts of the theory, thus theyre extended to completely illogical conclusions. Both are defended to religious extreme because they've been "so concretely proven".... Yet the supporting evidence has more holes than empty space. Problem is the math works out quite well. But the explanation for that math is backwards. The one thing I'll agree with newts on is the method for "confirming" SR is an assault on logic. Particularly the H&K "clocks on an airplane"garbage. Direct measurement came nowhere near matching the theory, so certain variables were artificially accounted for, ignoring other significant ones until the numbers of the prediction matched the result. Accounting for fractions of variables is voodoo science. And even if the clocks were off by the predicted amount, there's no justification for us to believe that "time" changed more so than the clocks. Too many obvious variables are ignored to pretend the theory fit.

Of course not. Point is, that force is being put out there. What happens to the force after it's generated doesn't change what generated that force. The tides are being pulled over a turbine used to charge a battery, which causes a bit of drag in the water. How does that water lose more energy if the circuit is complete and the battery is charging as opposed to if the circuit to the battery is broken... the turbine causes identical drag... but the energy isn't being utilized to store electricity? The force is being applied, whether it's utilized or not. Whether water is tumbling over a rock and applying a certain amount of drag... or tumbling over a turbine and having that same amount of drag generate electricity... the water has no way to detect that effect... it just experiences some drag. That's why this statement is illogical:

And the suns energy helps along the water cycle. When we use hydroelectricity, are we depeting the sun faster than if we hadn't generated that electricity? The work of moving the water is done whether we utilize it or not.

Zapdos. Pokemon #145. Legendary flying/electric type. You. Legendary pokemon should know how silly the word "impossible" is. Even assuming both the moon and earth lock together, worst case scenario, the moon will also be pulling on our atmosphere, which isn't quite as limited as our oceans. Atmospheres are also pretty hard to pull uniformly. Doing so would kick up pretty massive winds... once again providing harvestable energy even if the earth and moon experience tidal lock billions of years from now. Even if the moon's gravity become impossible to harvest, the earth's gravity provides plenty within our own system.

In response to the legendary pokemon: 1- I believe that the work the moon is doing on the tides may cause tidal locking... I don't believe us utilizing the tides more will have any effect on that. And I don't believe that tidal locking of the moon will have any effect on the moon's ability to pull the tide's. That's rotation, not orbit. A rock facing one direction has the same gravity as the same rock facing the other direction. Now, swan suggested that tidal locking is also the cause for the moon's orbit receding. Thus the work of gravity has an antigravitational effect. I believe the moon may be receding... but I don't believe the moon pulling the tides causes the moon to be pushed away from those tides. 2- With our planet's chemical composition? It would certainly be much colder... all water on the surface would freeze... but gasses would still circulate over our frozen shell... and fluids would still circulate under it. It would certainly kill all humans. But, if you look at the planets we have (ignoring pluto, because it's stupid).... planets closer to the sun have a smaller atmosphere... no clouds, thus no rain. Farther away you get... the more active the atmosphere... even with less heat coming from the sun. I don't think neptune's winds can be primarily attributed from the sun's heat. 3- About stars burning forever? Well, they seem to blow up. I'm only suggesting that you don't often see a celestial body capable of fusion orbiting a celestial body not capable of fusion. I.e. a star orbiting a non-star. I think the star's ability to have all those warm, shiney reactions comes from it's amazing mass and the epic pressure from it's own gravity. I believe the chemical reactions are the catalyst for energy transfer.... but the energy that sustains these reaction is the sun's own gravity, which doesn't deplete. That doesn't mean it'll never go out of balance and explode. The environment of a star is certainly hostile, and there's bound to be degradation. 4- I'd need you to define "never cool." To what extent? Certainly the atmosphere will go through cycles of cooling to different degrees. I assume you're asking if I believe that the earth's core will ever stop having liquid-hot-magma? If so, affirmative. While there is radioactive components down there... it seems more rational to me that those elements are a product of heat and pressure rather than the cause for the heat and pressure. A study would be interesting to tap to the earth's core, monitor it for a few centuries and see if the over-all levels of radiation are reducing, staying the same... or possibly increasing. Unfortunately, we don't even have the technology to reach the bottom of our oceans.... I don't think we can rightly claim to have the earth's core 100% figured out. ... at this point, I think it's important to specify that all these arguments are -not- any sort of claim of being superior to all of the people who've studied all of these things longer than me. I do not argue to be "right" or prove other's "wrong." I believe that science is about the question... not the answer. Many people have more accurate answers than me.... but too many are too complacent in their answers, and accept the answer for face value. But, when we stop asking questions, we become stagnant. I don't claim to have accurate answers.... but I'm pretty good at pointing out questions others may have missed. I'll be arrogant enough to claim that science cares a lot more about the question than the answer. Answers are dead once we have them. We can only continue to learn if we continue to question and challenge everything. Especially what we consider to be "well established and unquestionable." ... it's the "unquestionable" stuff that should be questioned the most aggressively. Yep, you're right. I had a brain fart on that one. If we're not discussing the moon's rotation, I might need this more clearly defined. Are you suggesting that eventually the earth's rotation will match the moon's orbit, therefore the moon will always seem to be in the same position in the sky? One side of the planet will see the moon constantly and the other side will never see it again? Because that would definitely stop the tides going in and out as the oceans would simply stay bulged on one side of the planet. The moon would still be producing the same amount of force from gravity, it just wouldn't be moving items back and forth, thus making it more difficult to harness for electricity.

Well, one of us is definitely misunderstanding something. From my understanding, tidal locking seems to effect the satellite's rotation... not it's orbit. I.e. the moon would still be there, it would just always be showing us the same side. The moon's... kinda already in a state of tidal locking as it's synched up with the sun. That's why the same side of the moon is always dark. Were the moon's roatation to be synched with us so it's no longer in tidal locking with the sun, but instead in tidal locking with us.... the gravity of the moon wouldn't change in the slightest. The tide's would still function exactly as they do today... it's just that "the dark side of the moon" would eventually face the sun every now and then and we'd see that side. .... more to the point... Gravity is exerting that energy regardless of whether we use it or not. If we were to build a million tidal generators and generate tons o' electricity from the tides... that would not change the moon's orbit one li'l bit. ... any more than adding more rocks for the water to flow around.