dumbbloke

<it is a fetus, then it physically exists, but there is no identity or consciousness to make a person.> I dissagree with this, and believe that the inteligence which develops and occupies that body for life (the thinking/feeling part of us) is already present in the body. It may be in a primitive state of development, but it is able to feel and think. BTW: I'm certain that your skills as a clairvoyant would be most usefull to many, IFF you can accurately predict the future for such as an embryo. My crummy crystal ball needs more power than I have to work, and Urims and Thumims are rare. As for anyone judging whether a life was worthwhile, that is only a teensy bit easier than pre-judging the matter. Neither is given to either of us.

You seem to assume that a foetus has no native intelligence with which to feel anything or think anything. Some people seem to think this state continues until birth, giving them license to destroy the unborn because they aren't yet human.... I would disagree, and I would not dare to say when this comes about, so I assume, as a precaution, that such capacities are present from conception-and I defy any to prove otherwise beyond doubt. I am not totally pro life, as there are occasions where termination is necessary, or perhaps permissable, but not as a default solution to a lack of self dicipline or it's incovenient. Like the death penalty, it should be available should the occasion warrant it. Hopefully, those occasions will be rare. It say nothing good about a society which does not protect the rights of the unborn. If you don't want the child, then don't create them in the first place. Retropectivity doesn't absolve murder.

There's a saying, It takes all types to make a world. I believe it. We, as a society, need the good and the bad, the weak and the strong to have opportunity to choose good from evil, and be happy. Bethoven, they tell me, was born to a seriously ill mother, and if we followed your prescriptions, he would never have been born. I find your arguements inhumane, because you seek to destroy or prevent defenceless lives. Once concieved, a child has a right to be born, and live, however briefly. Further, that child has a right to be born to a married couple of opposite gender. Willful denial of that right is a serious matter. Not all suffering is bad for you, and it may be necessary to help you become what you were intended to be. Suffering is not pleasant for most of us, but it is bareable, and is a great teacher. Procreation licensing sounds a good idea-good luck with getting the necessary political support, and stopping youth "experimentation" for just one. A child is forever, ppl should know that, and discipline themselves accordingly, but too many prefer to have their cake and abort their "mistake" later. I call such murderers, and wish they would not. Traditional family structures exist to benefit the members of the family, and we undermine them at the peril of our whole society.

Suggest all you like, there are well known rebuttals to your claims. And you haven't addressed the main idea--have you spiritually proven the Book of Mormon true or false? That is the crux of the matter-if it is true then you need to come into line. If it is not, then you are free to go your own way. If you make no sincere attempt-you are under condemnation.

The concept of the trinity is false. The terms God, Christ, Father are used in the biblical texts interchangably. but in reality there are 3 separate entities in the Godhead: Elohim, the Father; jehova, the Christ; and the Holy Ghost-whom is a personage of spirit. These three govern as one the universe(s) we have, and Elohim is Father of our spirit bodies which we had prior to mortality. Christ becomes our father as we accept him as our saviour, and we become his sons and daughters spiritually.

I guess this is the place to say it. The Book of Mormon is either of God or it is not. When we introduce someone to it, we teach them from it, and invite them to learn about it. They can read from anywhere in the text, though we have a few pleces we like them to see and think about. Then we point out Moroni 10:4-5-where the prophet Moroni promises to the reader of the book, that IF they will read the book, consider it in the light of the biblical text and God's dealings both with peoples in the past, then, being obedient to divine laws, & believing that they will be answered, ask God, in the name of Christ if it is a true record-they will recieve an answer that it is a true record. This testimony is the foundation of our faith, that we know, from divine sources that the Book of Moromon is of God. That personal proof is available to all mankind whom will pay the price to receive it. There are certain logical extensions from that proof. That how we came by the book is a true account, and that Joseph Smith Jnr was indeed a prophet-and so forth to the present day.

Actually, it's not God's fault at all. it's the fault of the perpetrators of the evil. We live in a time of suspended judgement, this would is perfectly imperfect so that the next world can be perfect and correct all the problems, resolve all the injustices and reward all the good and evil properly. If it weren't so, this world would be unable to be a fair test of us to see if we would do all things whatsoever He should command us. If the test isn't fair, then we would never qualify to recieve the rewards promised. It would be impossible. Unpleasant, unfair, terrible--yes, and absolutely necessary for our salvation. It HAS to be this way.

To me, a God is a perfect being, who knows all things and obeys all laws. They are just and merciful, they cannot lie or be decieved, and live in a state of unending joy. The purpose of our mortal existense is to qualify to return to their presence and share their existence in every respect. IE: Become like them, share in their power and glory, and do the things that they do. Those whom fail the challenge of life will be less happy than those whom succeed, each according to his desires of his own heart and whom/what he follows. The purpose of religion is to provide the authorised ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation to all who desire them, that by fulfilling the requirements they might be found innocent of sin at the last day, and not suffer for their disobediences to the perfect laws of a just God, which would cause them to be forever shut out of his presence and be less happy forever. That men might not suffer the penalties of the broken laws, we preach among them, that they might freely choose to accept the divine gift offered freely, or reject it as they please, and recieve a just reward of blessing for obedience or condemnation for disobedience. Men are free to choose their actions, but having chosen, are bound to the consequenses. God will never force the human mind, he will only invite.

frequency is the number of completed cycles or similar crests per unit of time. NB complex wave structures are made up of multiple frequencies added together. See Modulation.

You can jump from a roof at height h and fall to a lower height, but to get back up to h you will need to stop falling and gain altitude. This is called climbing-however you do it, and requires an increase of energy against gravity g greater than -g.m

Agreed. thanks for sorting that.

yes, and objects which travelled inside the original periphery would be subject to more gravitation, because they were closer without obstruction. in the same total gravity well. IE the gravity at Earth would be the same, but provided you were within the solar periphery and more than the distribution of mass from the core you would experience a higher gravitational attraction due to proximity to the source, which was previously unavailable.

Thank you, now I get it. The objects are closer to the core than the surface of the star pre-collapse, and therefore getting into a denser grav field, because it's now steeper and they can get closer to the center of mass without collision with the periphery of the star.

<From the perspective of the companion, the center of mass of the star is the same as the center of mass of the black hole.> True, but is gravitation of a sphere measured from its center, or its distribution? The distribution is where it is, the center can be very far away.

Tks, I gathered most of that. What I want to know is does the gravity of the collaped star differ from the previous expanded gravity, and if not, why do I remember being taught that they then attracted other masses/light into themselves because of gravity. Surely those properties must have pre-existed with the original star, even if they could not be observed, because the gravity is unchanged.

Save yourself a lot of time and effort and buy one--it will work immediately and accurately. you don't have time to study digital electronics enough to become sufficiently competent.

There is ZERO gravity in the centre of a planet or star! .the gravity of an object is measured from its nearest distribution of mass. BTW thanks for confirming the grav force doesn't change. So how do these people get a black hole from a star that didn't have the property prior to collapse, as I was taught many moons ago.

An increase in car mass does not greatly increase grip before the brakes lockup. Tyre grip is very temperature dependent. Once the tyres slip too much {~8%?}, decelleration is reduced. It is safe to say a increase in vehicle mass always increases braking distance.

The relative distance between them does not change, therefore there is no doppler effect, though if the person rotates on the spot at the rate of the rotation of the source it will eliminate all errors from the experiment. NB Any breeze will cause errors.

Tell me where I go wrong in this, pls. 1. gravity is related directly to the magnitude of the relevant masses and inversely to the distances squared, NOT the density of the masses. 2. A large star, of mass m, and distribution of mass radius r1 starts to cool, and eventually collapses into itself to form a super-dense material-still of mass m, but now of a smaller radius of distribution of mass r2. [Laws of Conservation] Q. How can gravity of the collapsed star change to attract other objects into its black hole, unless it didn't because it was a pre-existing property of the gravitational field? 3. The gravity field strength of the collapsed star is now at a net further distance from any of it's solar companions, thus weakening the overall graviational effect and allowing them to slowly drift off.