Examining A Claim of the Impossibility of Creationism

Jump to Last Post 1-22 of 22 discussions (146 posts)

60
emrldphxposted 12 years ago
Well, I've had to do this again to have a chance for someone to defend their claim without the power to simply delete my arguments.

The author of the hub of which I speak is Fatfist, and I invite him to defend his claim here in a public forum, where he can't delete my arguments and pretend that I never made them.

Fatfist's claim is that he can prove(he uses the word show) that first cause is impossible. To do so, he chooses to define certain words in his own way, rather than accept the dictionary definition. These words need to be understood to understand the claim.

Verb = a word which implies action

Why does this matter? If we don't use the same meanings of words, we don't even know what the other person is talking about.

Fatfist says things like 'space precedes God'. In other words, space existed before God, so he couldn't create it. How can God create something that doesn't exist? Even worse, how can something that doesn't exist have existed before God?

I have two questions for Fatfist to answer, and I offer him a chance to answer them using his own definitions:

1 - Where does the matter come from that appears in particle accelerators when two particles collide at near-C speeds? If energy doesn't exist, as Fatfist claims, then the matter couldn't have come from energy. So where does it come from?

2 - Take the sentence 'The car exists'. Fatfist claims 'car' is the noun and 'exists' is an adjective. For a sentence to be complete, it needs a noun and a verb. In order to be a verb, according to Fatfist, a word has to imply action. How can you add a verb to the phrase 'the car exists' without removing the word car, or exist?
reply report
1. 51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There he is wrong.
  
  Space and time are the creations of the Creator God; what made Fatfist to think that space should precede Him.
  
  The Creator God does not need space to live in; He is an attributive Being.
  
  Fatfist should amend his concepts
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Paarsurrey, don't make me start posting the link to my other post... Stop the dogma. Keep it honest.
  reply report
  60
  paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  .
  .
  
  Actually, I have changed my mind.
  
  Do what you want; you are not my job.
  reply report
  61
  nightwork4posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  simple question for you bud, where did god come from. i'm dying to hear your answer.
  reply report
2. 0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It comes from smaller particles (sub-atomic objects), which are fused together into larger ones.
  
  However, I should mention that these particle accelerators are experimenting with objects that are way to small to be observed directly and therefore you should take anything that the quantum physicists say with a grain of salt.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The chamber of the accelerator is a vacuum... there is no matter in it before the experiment.
  
  After the collision, there is more matter than exists in just the two particles that collide. For example, when a positron and an electron collide, a W+/W- boson-pair can appear.
  
  The positron has a mass of 9.1x10^-31 kg, and the electron has a mass of 9.1x10^-31 kg. The mass of the electron-positron pair is 0.00000000000000000000000000000182 kg.
  
  The W+ and W- bosons each have a mass of 80.4 GeV/c2.
  
  1 GeV/c2 = 1.783×10−27 kg
  
  The mass of the bosons is 0.00000000000000000000000027808 kg.
  
  Let's compare the two. The original mass of the electron-positron pair is on top, the mass of the boson pair is on bottom.
  
  0.00000000000000000000000000000182 kg
  0.00000000000000000000000027808 kg
  
  In simple terms, the mass of the new matter is 152,000 times greater than the mass of the original pair. It's not just new material created by fusing two particles together. It's about actual matter being created out of energy.
  
  In other examples, experiments have yielded matter in a vacuum by colliding two extremely high-energy light beams(lasers). In a vacuum with no matter, matter appears.
  
  The transformation of matter into energy is historic(nuclear bombs). The transformation of energy into matter has been taking place for at least 15 years, to my knowledge.
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is not a fact. They assume that this is a perfect 'vacuum' devoid of any matter because they are idealists. There is no perfectly empty space or perfectly solid matter.
  
  Energy was supposed to be nothing but a mathematical concept. But more recently it has been reified into a nonsensical object/concept hybrid. Mathematical physicists cannot decide weather energy is an object or a concept. There is no such thing as 'energy'. The objective universe consists only of matter.
  
  This is nothing but transformation of matter into it's smaller components and the smaller components being merged together. No matter is ever created or destroyed. It is impossible.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is a vacuum void of any matter we can detect. It's not like we have people looking in these chambers with a microscope. Have you seen the detectors they use for the LHC at CERN? It's a bold claim for you to say that it's not a vacuum when science holds a tremendous amount of evidence to the contrary.
  
  Ok... there is no such thing as energy? What is light? What are x-rays? You say it doesn't exist, yet we can measure it, detect it, and create it.
  
  Even if you choose not to call it energy, how do you explain matter being created from light?
  
  When the LHC at CERN is fired up and particles smash into each other, matter-antimatter pairs of particles appear. As soon as they touch again, they disappear. When they appear, there is a reduction in energy levels. When they disappear, there is a release of energy.
  
  Do you just assume that you know better than thousands of physicists, scientist, and engineers, working together to solve problems, for years on end?
  
  There are many situations in which matter can be converted into energy.
  
  These things aren't just theories. They have been proven through experimentation. How else do we end up with matter when two powerful lasers are aimed at each other?
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right, there are particles that are too small to detect. Observation does not create reality. Just because they can't detect them does not mean that they aren't there.
  
  They do not have any evidence. They assume it's a vacuum and I assume that it isn't a vacuum. A perfect vacuum is impossible. There is always matter, no matter how small it is.
  
  I just wrote a hub about light called "What do Light Waves Propagate Through?". You can take a look at that if you'd like.
  
  This is the nonsensical explanation that the mathematicians have provided for their blind accelerator experiments. It has nothing to do with reality.
  
  Argument from authority. I suppose you obviously would've been one of the people who preached the geocentric model as well, huh? Only ignorant fools worship authority.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You want to bring in logical fallacies?
  
  Every point you bring up, you have to back up with proof.
  
  You have provided none.
  
  You're like the people that say they know better than relativity, because it doesn't make sense to them. They ignore the fact that clocks will go faster or slower depending on speed and elevation. They ignore that GPS doesn't work without relativity.
  
  So go ahead. You introduced logical fallacies, back up all of your claims.
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  'Proof' is arrogant subjective nonsense. I will not play this silly game of proof.
  
  Yes, clocks move faster or slower depending on speed, elevation, etc. Certainly not time though. Time is a mathematical concept invented by man. A lot of relativity is mostly bunk.
  
  What specifically are you talking about? Vacuum vs. no vacuum are both assumptions. However, the idea that a perfect vacuum is possible is an irrational idealistic assumption.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, proof is a word society has decided on to say something is sufficient evidence of truth. If you hold up a rock and let go 20,000 times in all parts of the world under all conditions, and every time it falls, that can be considered proof that a rock will fall if you hold it up and let go. It's not really subjective, and to argue that it is is much more philosophic than scientific. I'm just saying, if you want to point out logical fallacies, then pay attention to the burden of proof when you make claims about what is possible and impossible.
  
  Time doesn't exist? It's just a word we came up with to represent this 'progression of events' that everyone experiences. How hard is it to understand that, having two series of events that repeatedly take the same amount of time, yet if they travel at different speeds they take different amounts of time, that there is a difference in time between the two?
  
  The only argument you can make is a philosophical argument that time doesn't exist, so how do you explain our lives, and progression from event to event?
  
  See how this works? When you make a claim that the idea of a vacuum is 'an irrational idealistic assumption', the burden of proof is on you to say why. Just because someone says something doesn't make it so.
  
  And, I can back up that phrase 'Just because someone says something doesn't make it so.'. Here's my proof... ready?
  
  You are a mouse.
  
  Did it work?
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If we were going to play the game of proof, then YOU would have the burden to prove that energy can be turned into matter. So since YOU claim that it's possible to prove, go ahead. Prove that the concept of energy can turn into matter. How about you go get your camera and film this alleged event which you CLAIM is a fact. Okay?
  
  Matter just moves. Matter does not move 'over time' (whatever that's supposed to mean). Brains/minds have the ability to record and memorize the moving matter that they observe, but most objects cannot do this and therefore the notion of the past and future does not apply to them. The moon cannot remember where it was as it rotates around the earth. There is no 'temporal record' (i.e. time) that is separate from our memories.
  
  Matter just moves. It's very simple. 'Time' only makes sense to conscious animals such as humans.
  
  No, dumb-dumb. You don't seem to understand that both assumptions are impossible to prove. The ASSUMPTION of a perfect vacuum does not have any evidence to support it. In fact, what is referred to as the 'CMBR' clearly shows that space is NOT devoid of matter. Unless that is, you believe in matterless motion... but I guess I already know that you obviously do.
  
  Hm, we seem to have a case of the 'pot calling the kettle black' going on here. As I recall, you are the one who brought up this nonsense about worshiping authority and obeying what they say like a good choir boy.
  
  What? You need to stay off the shrooms.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Listen Infinite, I linked two two resources that talk about the phenomena. I don't have to prove scientifically established facts. If you want, you can pay to go see it happen in a particle accelerator, I'm sure.
  
  If you say I can't point to scientific experiments as evidence, but rather have to show everything myself, then our discussion would have to start with defining basic terms and experimenting with gravity. Why reinvent the wheel?
  
  You are saying that time is observer-dependent. So, if nobody is here to notice things moving, there will be no record of them moving. There may be no record, but they still move. Our knowledge of the movement isn't what causes the movement.
  
  'Time' is nothing more than a word that describes something. Just as 'apple' just describes an object. Without humans, 'apple' wouldn't exist, so the object wouldn't either... at least according to your argument.
  
  You're wrong though. Just as apples would be just as real if we weren't here to call them 'apples', time is real whether or not we are here to call it 'time'.
  
  CMBR is radiation, not matter. We have detectors that can detect any type of matter we know of. We can use those detectors to show that there is no matter that we know of in a vacuum. We have evidence of it being a vacuum. Your claim of it being an assumption doesn't make it fact.
  
  You have the assumption that light is the same as sound. Sound requires a medium, like air, to travel. Light doesn't.
  
  No, I said that if you state that the concept of a vacuum is an assumption, you need to back up your claim. Your claim in and of itself doesn't define reality.
  
  I'm guessing it didn't work? Do you know why? It is because saying something doesn't make it happen, doesn't make it real. You say 'that's an assumption' with nothing to back up your claim. I say 'you are a mouse' with nothing to back up my claim. Do you get my point yet?
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Or in other words, you bow to authority and are incapable critical thinking.
  
  Oh? What am I going to 'see', emrldphx? Will I see the ability to do work transform into matter. Amazing...
  
  Yes, exactly.
  
  Of course not. Only other matter can cause matter to move by coming in physical surface to surface contact with it.
  
  No, time is word that describes a concept (you know, like love and justice). 'Something' is a synonym for object.
  
  All words are artificial. But you can point to the object we call 'apple' and then utter a sound (name it). We can't do that with time, because time does not exist. Time is a concept.
  
  Nope, time does not have shape/form and location WRT other matter. Time is not matter. Only matter objectively (observer independently) exists.
  
  The concept of 'radiation' describes MOTION of matter. You cannot have motion without matter. Waves cannot propagate through idealistic nothingness. That is completely and utterly absurd.
  
  No you don't. You have provided absolutely no evidence of a vacuum.
  
  Light absolutely requires a medium. 'Wave' is a concept that describes motion. You cannot have motion without matter. If you disagree, then please show me a picture or movie of motion (without any matter).
  
  This is not a claim. If you have no evidence of a vacuum, then it is an assumption. In fact, this assumption is contradicted by CMBR (matterless motion is impossible).
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  By your basis, any scientific discussion would have to start with and show experimentally every basis of human knowledge.
  
  If we can't base discussions off of current knowledge, what can we base them off of? Critical thinking is based off of current knowledge as well, mind you.
  
  You would be able to watch the monitors that detect the bosons appearing. You would be able to watch the monitors that detect the light beams colliding. You would be able to watch the monitors that show the electromagnetic fields that are generated.
  
  You don't have an understanding of energy. You have the basic definition correct, but that is the definition of energy in general. Light is a type of energy. If you try to define light as 'the ability to do work', then you will fall short of reality, and conclude that 'light' doesn't exist either.
  
  Exactly. So the thing that our word describes would still be there. Time just describes something that happens. The word wouldn't exist, the thing still would.
  
  Really? Have you ever moved a magnet with another magnet? There is no surface to surface contact there!
  
  Time describes something that happens. Series of events. Motion. To say that the thing the word describes doesn't exist is to say that motion is impossible.
  
  You are one of these people who thinks only objects exist. What about gravity... does it exist? Magnetism? Light?
  
  You need to expand your view of reality.
  
  Are you Fatfist? Only things with shape exist, therefore light doesn't exist. You don't make any sense.
  
  Motion of matter? What matter? Show me what matter makes up CMBR. Show me what matter makes up light.
  
  Yes I have. We have detectors that can detect anything from photons, to gluons, bosons, electrons, atoms, and any base particle. We can show that none of those are present in a vacuum.
  
  Yes, it is possible for something else to be there, but does it make more sense to say the matter comes from what we know is present in the vacuum or that the matter comes from some other, invisible thing?
  
  Ok, let's assume you are right. What matter does light travel 'on' or 'through'? Can you please show me how this works?
  
  I presented evidence.
  
  You present radiation as proof of matter. Show me what matter is present in CMBR. I'm using your own requirements for reality here... show me what matter and how CMBR travels on that matter.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Monitors? Yeah, that's great. Because that gives us so much insight into what's LITERALLY happening at the sub-atomic level. Let's get one thing straight right now, no has ever directly observed sub-atomic particles. The mathematical physicists give irrational explanations for blind (yes BLIND) experiments. My explanation is that detectable matter always comes from smaller matter clumping together. Their IRRATIONAL explanation is that the matter comes from energy or nothing.
  
  Light is an observer-dependent experience which only occurs in the mind. The objective mechanism is wave motion propagating through sub-atomic matter. There is no energy.
  
  See, this is where you're confused. Time is not a 'thing'. Time is no-thing. I thought I already made it clear that time/temporal record is observer-dependent. Matter moves, but does not remember where it moved.
  
  Only if you believe in magic. I have a hub that explains this.
  
  What on earth are you talking about. I've told you that 'things just move'. Why is that so hard for your pea-brain to grasp? Past/memories require a conscious observer (observer-dependent).
  
  Nope, only the matter that mediates the action we call 'gravity'.
  
  Again, only the matter that mediates 'magnetism'.
  
  Subjective experience. Only occurs in the mind.
  
  No, I agree with certain aspects of what Bill Gaede and Fatfist say. But I disagree on other subjects.
  
  It's whatever is doing the 'waving' motion that we call 'CMBR'. Obviously we don't have photographs of them since they're way too small, but the same can be said of all sub-atomic particles. No one has ever observed a sub-atomic particle.
  
  Obviously it makes more sense to say that it comes from smaller matter rather than the irrational object/concept hybrid called 'energy'. By the way, you have no evidence that a formless reified concept exists.
  
  Same as sound waves propagating through the air. The difference is that radiation waves are much faster and they propagate through a medium of sub-atomic objects. What exactly these objects look like is irrelevant. But they definitely have 3D form and location wrt other matter.
  
  Of what? Matterless motion? Reified concepts? No you haven't. Just saying you have does not mean that you did. Sorry, you have presented ZERO evidence for matterless motion. The reason is because it is impossible to have evidence of gibberish.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, you criticize scientists for conduction blind(not really, just not with visible light) experiments on matter we can generate and detect. To you it is better to just assume that something you can't see is there. There is no evidence of that! You try to define reality with 'there must be something smaller inside'. I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Of course we can't see electrons with light, but we observe, detect, and create them. Your requirement of seeing things is ridiculous. You have to reject the existence of the atom by your own standards.
  
  However, we can detect energy, fields, and 'image' the pathway of electrons with extremely powerful, quick laser bursts.
  
  Ok... so the photon doesn't exist. Light is just like sound, a vibration... caused by... what?
  
  Time is the word for the phenomenon! It's not that difficult. Even without us, the thing we call 'time' would still happen. Matter doesn't need memory to move.
  
  Your hub doesn't even explain anything about magnets. It just says there are these particles pushing in all directions.
  
  I can hold a magnet, and without touching another magnet, move it. You say this doesn't happen? Your ability to reject reality is incredible.
  
  Let me try again. You have a rock in space. The rock moves. The rock still moves. If you take snapshots of the rock, the progression from one to the next is called 'time' in our language. It is similar to motion. Time is a progression of events.
  
  Even without humans, events would progress. The word 'time' wouldn't be there, but the progression of events would still be there.
  
  Ok. I understand your position. Do you have ANY evidence of these types of matter that mediate gravity, magnetism, and light? Any at all? (Saying 'it's rational to assume sub-atomic particles are made of smaller particles' doesn't count as evidence).
  
  Again, what matter?
  
  Right... so, how do solar calculators work?
  
  Ok, you just use the same definitions for 'exist', which aren't the commonly accepted, dictionary definitions.
  
  We have observed sub-atomic particles indirectly. NOBODY has observed your particles in any fashion.
  
  I have plenty of evidence that energy exists. Combustion, for one. Nuclear explosions, for another. Fusion and fission, for another.
  
  In your mind, is there such a thing as a 'base element' or is everything just made of smaller stuff forever and ever?
  
  They definitely have 3d form and location. You have no evidence of this. None. 0. Zilch.
  
  Yet you reject evidence of reality.
  
  I love your ability to say that things we observe, detect, and create are rubbish, but still be able to insist on smaller things causing everything, with no evidence.
  
  And by the way, we have filmed electrons. They used lasers, look it up.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hm, you seem to have some contradictions going on here. On the one hand you say that we shouldn't assume there is anything smaller than we can detect, but then claim that unobservable 'energy' (or if you have observed this magical critter, then by all means, please show me picture of it) is what new matter is created from. The bottom line is that you ASSUME that matter is created from energy/gibberish, whereas I ASSUME that this comes from smaller matter being pushed together to form larger particles that can vaguely be detected, but not directly observed.
  
  No, we can clearly see the shape of atoms with scanning microscopes. No one has ever seen energy and they never will. Energy does not exist.
  
  You're too stupid for this, emrldphx. You still don't understand that this matterless concept voodoo is the mathematician's irrational/nonsensical explanation. We cannot detect concepts such as 'energy' or 'matterless field'. We can only detect objects/particles.
  
  Right, matter doesn't need memory/past/time to move. There are two aspects of this concept of time. One is counting; seconds, minutes, hours, etc. and the other is past, present, future. Obviously humans invented counting and past, present, future has to do with memory. So time is observer-dependent. Time is not a synonym for motion of matter. Motion of matter is observer-independent. Time is NOT a thing, time does NOT exist. Believe me, I wish I could bend time, stretch time, maybe put some time in my pocket and save it for later. But it just isn't possible.
  
  No, dumb-dumb. Time is not a thing/object. Time does not exist. Only matter objectively exists and only motion of matter objectively occurs. Motion does not require a reified concept called 'time'.
  
  Yeah, "gravity, magnetism and light" are the evidence. Matterless motion is impossible. The CMBR debunks the idea of a void. Matter is everywhere.
  
  Don't play dumb. They're 'powered' by the waves propagating through the particle medium. They are 'mechanically' powered. The objective universe is 100% mechanical (surface to surface contact).
  
  All sub-atomic particles are inferred. They are never observed. Likewise, I infer that there is a medium of sub-atomic particles (CMBR, etc.).
  
  Yes.
  
  You have this delusion that you have evidence of a reified concept/pseudo-object called 'energy' and yet you are unable to show me a picture of this alleged 'entity' or even tell me what it looks like. What is the shape of energy? Where is 'it' located. I want to see this critter in action.
  
  I've seen that blurry blue video before. Yeah, that's some great 'footage' right there.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say unobservable energy. You think we can only observe things visually, using the visible light spectrum. That's just not the case though. We aren't limited just to visible light, we can use all sorts of the electromagnetic spectrum to help image and detect things, and we can detect, using sensors, electromagnetic radiation itself.
  
  Let me ask you this. When two lasers are directed at each other in a 'vacuum', (in your opinion) what causes the invisible matter we don't know about to fuse together into something we can detect?
  
  See the point? We have a rational, mathematical, scientific explanation for energy converting into light. You just have your own thought process.
  
  We can see atoms with electron microscopes... but we've never seen an electron... so how do we know? Just as we can't see electrons, we can't see radiation or energy fields. But, we can develop sensors that pick it up.
  
  Here's a question. How does film work? You say light is just in our minds... how can something in our minds cause an image to engrain itself on film?
  
  You keep making this claim with NO EVIDENCE. Explain what happens when we take an x-ray, a ct scan, an MRI, a PET scan, and a photograph.
  
  The past has nothing to do with memory, nor does the future! How can memory be applied to the future? We have no memory of the future.
  
  The sequence of events that we call time is independent of us. All we did was give it a name. Even without us, this sequence of events takes place.
  
  The moment you introduce personal attacks(dumb-dumb), you lose all respect in my book. Resorting to demeaning remarks shows your lack of confidence in your own argument. You haven't even referenced the sequence of events. It exists without us. We just call it 'time'.
  
  You are so limited to your definition of 'things' and 'exist', you must not even think motion exists.
  
  No, I'm asking for evidence of the 'underlying matter' which you reference. You claim gravity works through this matter. Gravity is not proof of it.
  
  Let me help you out. Your hypothesis is that gravity is propagated on or through some type of sub-atomic matter.
  
  Where is evidence in support of your hypothesis? Gravity isn't evidence of your hypothesis, I'm sorry, but it's not.
  
  Can you explain this 'powering' process? How does it work?
  
  How do magnets move each other without surface to surface contact?
  
  Again, you do so with no evidence. Can you refer to a single experiment which supports your hypothesis?
  
  Ok. Do you have any evidence of anything smaller than our current base particles?
  
  Again, sight isn't the only sense, or the only way to prove something exists. You only believe in things you can see... that's fine. You cannot see atoms or electrons, by the way.
  
  Do you have any idea what the footage is showing? What it represents?
  
  What do you want us to do, take a picture with a really strong camera? That doesn't work for things smaller than light.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, we can only detect objects (atoms, particles, etc.) Not concepts (love, justice, radiation, etc.) Obviously you can not detect formless abstractions.
  
  It is not a vacuum. The only reason the particles are 'invisible' is because they're so small. By the way, I've seen you post nonsense about undetectable "spirit matter", so you need to stop being a hypocrite.
  
  Well then, by all means. Let's see the movie. It'll be called "energy transforms into light". I've repeatedly asked you to say WHAT this 'energy' monster IS. But you cannot tell me, because energy is nothing but nonsense.
  
  This is a complex microscopic mechanism involving the motion of matter. But again, the waves that reflect off of objects do not 'contain' light. 'Light' only happens in the mind, after the wave motion propagates into the eyes and then the brain interprets this as light.
  
  The reason is because I am genuinely annoyed at how stupid you are. Please go back re-read what I said about time and actually think about it. If you don't understand "things just move, time doesn't exist", then I'd say that 'stupid' is a fair title to apply to you.
  
  Motion occurs. Motion does not exist.
  
  If you want more info on the mechanism of magnetism then look at the websites that I linked to in my gravity and magnetism hub.
  
  All sub-atomic particles are inferred. They are never observed. Likewise, I infer that there is a medium of sub-atomic particles (CMBR, etc.).
  
  You missed the point again. All we can ever do with objects smaller than atoms is 'infer' their existence. The arrogant morons of your religion claim that they have 'proven' that abstract concepts exist. But what do they really do? All they ever do is infer. I shall repeat this again. SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES HAVE NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, THEY ARE ONLY INDIRECTLY INFERRED. I have inferred that the CMBR is the vibrating particle medium. Waves/vibrations don't propagate through nothing.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We can detect light and radiation. You have just decided that those things don't exist. You can't provide any evidence that your means of thinking is better other than saying 'only objects exist'. Your claim is hollow without any evidence.
  
  In the instance of my example it is light. Beams of radiation in the form of a laser. Have you ever seen a laser? Yeah, one of those.
  
  Explain it please. I can explain how light interacts with film, so I want you to explain how 'the motion of matter' interacts with film. You can't just say its complex... back up your claim.
  
  Answer my point. You continue to dodge the point. I'll turn it into a question for you since you can't grasp it.
  
  Does the series of events that we call 'time' happen independent of observation?
  
  Ok, 'motion' occurs. Occurs is a verb. Verbs describe action or state. So, for 'motion' to 'occur', it has to exist. Something that doesn't exist can't 'do' anything.
  
  You can't even link to them here? If you can't form your own argument, at least link to them here. I don't want to have to look through your hubs for information. You have to back up your claims. Not me.
  
  You really don't get it. There is tons of data about observing these particles. Bouncing a laser off an electron is the same as bouncing light off an electron.
  
  The point is, you still give NO EVIDENCE of any of your claims.
  
  You are wrong. We observe through other means, and we have filmed electrons with lasers. You can only say that it didn't happen, but that doesn't make it true. It's happened. Get over it.
  
  You can't provide any evidence of anything other than your own thoughts on how the universe 'should' be. Worse, you result to demeaning comments, rather than backing up your point.
  
  But, just for fun, I'll play your game. Ok, we infer the existence of these particles. We do so because of scientific experiments and the data it yields. Where is the scientific basis of your hypothesis?
  
  Really, I would love to see you provide some sort of scientific basis for your claims.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I love seeing this argument. The person presenting this argument attempts to demean a target(science) by presenting it in a bad light(religion, unscientific). I have seen this argument with everyone I've spoken to who rails against science... I don't know where they all get the idea from, but it's hilarious to see people who claim to be so logical use ridicule in this fashion.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ridiculous
  Adjective:
  Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd.
  Synonyms:
  ludicrous - laughable - absurd - funny - comical
  
  If a statement is ridiculous, then it deserves to be 'ridiculed'.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are not ridiculing a statement. You are ridiculing the person. You fall for two logical fallacies, appeal to ridicule and Ad Hominem, attacking the arguer instead of the argument.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I started out quite civil, actually. But you keep repeating nonsense about energy=light, energy=heat, energy=proven, etc, etc.
  
  Well you're clearly as thick as a brick wall. You will never understand that light is not energy, etc. If you do want to call it 'energy'. Then you need to understand that these 'energies' (light and heat) are observer-dependent. But you will never understand this because all you do is swallow the nonsensical garbage that you were taught. However, I will address your question about time.
  
  Series of events? What do you mean? Objects moving? Yeah, objects move. That's all that there is. But most objects can't remember where they moved.
  
  Do you see how simple that is now? There's just things moving, that's it.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Again, insulting. You fail to provide any evidence to support your points. The closest you can get is 'sound travels through matter in pressure waves, so light should too'. You can't say what should be true, based off of what is.
  
  Similarly, because atoms are made of sub-atomic particles, you assume that sub-atomic particles are made of smaller particles. Once again, assuming something based off another case just doesn't work. You have to provide evidence.
  
  Your conclusion and your argument contradict each other. You say the series of events takes place regardless of observation.
  
  Time: the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future.
  
  Or, in other words, time is the sequential relationship between events.
  
  Or, in other words, time is a series of events.
  
  You admitted that a series of events would continue in the form of motion without observation. That's all time is! There is nothing about time that says it has to be known or remembered.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is not mainly about evidence. Evidence is secondary, this is what you fail to understand. This is about explaining phenomena of the universe. The mathematicians have no rational explanations and they also have no evidence for their nonsense.
  
  Right, and that doesn't make any sense if you don't have memory. Ergo, time is observer-dependent.
  
  You're using the term 'series of events' nonsensically. Doesn't really mean anything, sorry. There is only motion of matter.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you want to make a claim, it is all about evidence. You have to back up your claims, otherwise anyone can just come in and say 'You're wrong, the world was created by a lollipop'.
  
  You say we have no rational explanations, which is simply false. We have detectors, generators, and things that run off the principles that we observe in nature. Interestingly enough, we have a lot of technology that wouldn't work if our math was off, but they do work.
  
  If mathematicians are so far off, how were they able to predict how much difference there would be in two identical clocks flying around the world in opposite directions?
  
  How does that not make sense if you don't have memory? Even if there is nobody to watch, an asteroid still moves from point-a to point-b. The sequential relationship is every point between point-a and point-b. The asteroid will pass through those sequential events whether anyone watches or not. The ONLY thing that would be different is that nobody would be around to call it time. But it would still happen.
  
  Exactly the same as nobody being around to call it an asteroid. It would still be the same thing without the word.
  
  Try to keep up infinite712. Here is a series of events. An asteroid moves from point-A to point-B. It then moves from point-B to point-C. It then moves from point-C to point-D. This is a series of events. This is what time represents.
  
  Did that make sense to you, or do I have to simplify it or clarify something for you?
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mathematical physicists have no evidence for their nonsense. They only have descriptions and irrational explanations. But evidence is secondary, you are focusing way too much on that.
  
  Now what is this nonsense about 'point a and point b'. An asteroid moves to different locations. But asteroids don't have memory. All they do is move. Your adding unnecessary nonsense.
  
  Yeah, because an asteroid is a physical object. Time isn't.
  
  Actually you're the one who needs to 'keep up' and understand that 'things just move'.
  
  Irrational language. But anyway, an asteroid changing location is what is called MOTION. Not time.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How do you want to present your ideas? Logically? If so, a logical argument has a premise(a base), and a conclusion(presenting the claim). You only present claims.
  
  When I present any evidence, you ignore it or wave it off.
  
  Do you want to present your ideas scientifically? Science requires data, a hypothesis, and an experiment. I refer to existing data from experiments performed already. Again, you present nothing.
  
  I never said anything about memory. You claim time doesn't exist, I have shown logical arguments to show that it does.
  
  Perhaps you will define time yourself and show why it doesn't exist?
  
  So, does that mean it doesn't happen? Motion isn't an object, yet you concede that it still happens without an observer. Maybe you can define your criteria for 'to exist' and 'to happen'.
  
  Perhaps you should go back and actually think about my examples, rather than dismiss them as nonsense.
  
  Can you show how it is irrational? For the something-th time, you have to say why. To just say it is irrational doesn't make it so, or prove that it is true. Go ahead and define time so we can know what you mean when you say time doesn't exist.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're hopeless, emrldphx. I'm not bothering with your repetitive nonsense anymore.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, thanks for the discussion.
  
  I recommend that next time, to avoid confusion, you use a dictionary if you're not sure what a word means.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I already told you that 'time' has been given two different meanings in a previous post. Apparently you didn't pay attention though and I am not re-posting what I said. Bye, I'm done.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know what you said. One is counting(which is just a way of dividing time, not the actual concept) and one is past, present, and future, which you said requires memory.
  
  Nothing about past, present, and future requires memory. The past happened before humans came along. The future will happen if we all die. The 'thing' that the word 'time' represents happens regardless if we are around to know of it or remember it.
  
  Goodbye.
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That should be good. Let's hear all about your refutation of relativity? What have you got?
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I read that hub and another one there on gravity and magnetism.
  
  Goobledegook, through and through. Very funny stuff. They show the author hasn't a clue about science.
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I agree. 'Goobledegook' is a perfect description of wave-particle duality nonsense.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I read your hub about light Infinite. You say 'light waves propagate through a medium of sub-atomic objects'.
  
  Light waves propagate through objects which we can't see, and you know this to be true without any proof? That sounds more like googledegook more than scientific explanations of experimental results.
  
  What data do you base your claim off of?
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes.
  
  Yes.
  
  Hm, how about the fact that light has been described as "having wave-like properties". Waves do not propagate through nothing. No matter how much you want them to, they never will. Matterless motion is ridiculous goobledegook.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Right. So you somehow 'know' or have 'proof' that light travels through some kind of matter, but you don't know what that matter is?
  
  Wave-like properties doesn't mean the same thing as 'being a wave'. Otherwise we would say 'light is a wave'. But, we don't.
  
  You are trying to present fact through what you consider to be rational reasoning. Unfortunately, your claim requires the existence of some type of matter that we can't see. You yourself said for something to exist it has to have shape and form. Can you tell me about this matter? Can you draw it for me?
  reply report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, the establishment does often refer to light as a wave. But they support an irrational contradictory idea that light is BOTH a wave of nothing AND a stream of photons.
  
  They could look like anything. Probably irregularly shaped objects. Or maybe spheres. Doesn't really matter. They are definitely 3D objects though and I could draw theoretical pictures of them.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Where is light defined as a wave? Who talks about light as a wave? Unless you are looking at old literature, the concept of wave-particle duality is well established.
  
  How can a wave cause a release of electrons in certain metals, creating an electric current? Can you explain that?
  
  You can't see them, but you know they are there. How do you know? Show me some evidence.
  
  With your idea of these particles pelting us from all directions, I have a question. If they are real enough to have such a drastic effect, surely they interact with our matter. Why can't we feel or detect them?
  
  Also, your idea of these particles, how come a small dense object shows as much 'gravity' as a large, less-dense object? Shouldn't only the size matter how many particles it blocks?
  report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was referring to your Hubs, but you already knew that.
  
  I also see you haven't addressed my question about relativity, but considering your posts are little more than hand waving, I can see why.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I save the word particle for the one thing that the Reality of Everything is made of, the Individual, Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity, the Primordial Atom; a Particle so minute as to not be readily apparent, as to not be measurable as to momentum, location in Time and Space;, the motion of said particle being meaningless, being Fully Random; it being this randomness of motion, vibration, oscillation, meaningless motion of the individual, Infinitely Finite, Indivisible Singularity; the Passionate Nature, it being this meaningless, randomness of motion that allows the Infinitely Finite Singularity to exist without displacement, without angular momentum without velocity of speed and direction, that is the cause of the Heat Energy created, generated by a Singularity alone in the Emptiness.
  
  As a quantity of particles clumped together the randomness of motion of each individual particle becomes inhibited, the whole quantity, the Mass, as a whole not able to generate as much, little, or no Heat Energy until said mass is caused to again become thinly divided. Quantity, M=EC square, E= Indivisible Particle.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Should read E = Heat Energy generated by meaningless, the randomness of motion of each indivisible particle;
  
  Mass being the product of an untold quantity of Heat producing particles.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have diffeiculty understanding what you mean because one moment you speak of the Creation of Matter and thed next you speak of the transformation of energy into matter.
  
  a Creation has not single direct cause, while transformation is based upon a sereies of events, is born of cause and effect...
  W
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The experiments where energy is transformed into matter is directed at those who argue that 'energy' isn't an actual 'thing'. If it weren't a thing, we wouldn't be able to turn it into matter.
  
  The creation of the universe can be taken to mean creation from nothing, or creation from something. Just as a sculptor can create a work of art from stone, a creator could create the universe directly from energy.
  reply report
  52
  wayne92587posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Slight problem, just a matter of semantics, A Creation is an original product of the Mind, is born of a state or condition, is born of a flash of insight, creativity.
  
  The materialization of a creation, a Creation made manifest a
  material, physical, reality is done so according ordinary, natural means, a process in which one material reality is transformed into another, a Creation being born of nothing.
  reply report
  65
  aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WHAT?
  Pleas speak English, with some content that makes sense.
  reply report
83
Don Wposted 12 years ago
*grabs some popcorn*
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't know if there will be a response from Fatfist, so that might not be exciting to watch.
  
  Maybe someone else will take up his claims, although I don't know many people willing to try and re-define English and grammar to suit their arguments...
  
  We'll see... can I have some popcorn too?
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well Fatfist has been called out. Surely his sense of honour and intellectual integrity will require him to respond (not that I'm stirring things up or anything).
  
  have some popcorn . . .
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Whoppers! After they've been in the freezer for a while... nothing beats em.
  
  Of course, that means you have to smuggle them into the theater. Or if you want to be honest, buy them from the theater before hand, freeze them, then take them in.
  reply report
  83
  Don Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Empty a bag of minstrels into your salt popcorn and enjoy the sweet and savoury goodness!
  reply report
  89
  SimeyCposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Darnit - can't get Minstrels over here in the US! Used to love those when I lived in Wales!
  reply report
  60
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  From what I understand the pathetic excuse for chocolate that you get in the US is sh*t. I tried a Riesen bar once, and nearly vomited.
  reply report
2. 89
  SimeyCposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm getting bored of Popcorn - where's the Pretzels?
  reply report
84
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
Immovable dogma, meet incorrigible argument...
reply report
1. 70
  Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  reply report
2. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know this argument doesn't actually have anything to do with Dogma, right?
  
  I'm just pointing out logical and scientific fallacies in an argument of proof.
  reply report
  62
  Nouveau Skepticposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know that comment/joke wasn't being made about you, right?
  reply report
84
kerrygposted 12 years ago
I haven't read the hub in question, but speaking as someone who leans toward the scientific, not the supernatural, explanation for the origin of the universe, it is my understanding that modern physics does believe that the initial state of the universe was a singularity, and that time and space did not exist in this initial state but began with the Big Bang. Therefore, if there is a god or gods, it would seem theoretically possible that he/she/it/they did, in fact, precede space and not the other way around, since by definition the laws of physics do not apply to all powerful supernatural beings.

However, I do not know what effect the discovery of possible parallel universes has had on our understanding of the initial state of our own universe, so it's possible that even if space and time did not exist in our own universe, it could have existed elsewhere, and therefore it is also possible that Fatfist is indeed correct and space did precede God.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Kerry, thank you for your comments.
  
  The problem is, Fatfist says that 'space'(nothingness) is not an object, but that is how he uses it in his decision-tree 'proof'. If you define space as nothing, then saying it existed before anything else is contradictory, because it can't exist, so it can't exist before anything either.
  
  Now, if you talk about space as an actual thing, a space-time continuum, a fabric, etc... then that changes thing.
  
  Also, Fatfist approaches the topic of the 'universe' from an external point of view. He believes science knows how big the universe is, and it would be possible to view it externally. This may or may not be possible, we can only account for some 40-50 billion light years in any given direction. It's a confusing topic, I admit, but because we exist inside the universe(assuming the big-bang is true), we don't have any real concept of the universe from an external point of view. If you were to travel back in time to the moment of the big-bang, you would still be inside the singularity, or whatever it was.
  
  I do, however, think it is safe to say that we must stick to established meanings of words. If everyone starts defining words themselves we lose the language entirely.
  reply report
60
emrldphxposted 12 years ago
Fatfist has accepted the challenge to answer one of my two main questions. He already accepted before but changed his mind, we'll see what happens.

For purposes of discussion, this is the question.

Remember, according to Fatfist, energy doesn't exist. I have asked him to explain where the matter comes from if not from energy.

Feel free to discuss your personal opinion or understanding of this topic.
reply report
1. 52
  wayne92587posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Energy does not exist in the material sense of the word, Energy having no Mass, no Quantity; Energy in particle form being a real whole Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity having no relative, numerical value, existing alone in the emptiness, carrying no weight; Energy in Particle form, as a Singularity, on an individual basis, having no effect, cause, not being subject to the relativity of Time and Space; the Motion of Energy as a Singularity alone in the Emptiness, having no quantity, no mass, not being readily apparent, not being measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and or Space, in Space-Time having no displacement, no Angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction.
  
  E=MC^2 should read M=EC^2, E being a real whole Singularity, having no relative, Numerical, value, having no Mass, no Quantity, not being readily apparent, measurable as to location and or momentum in Time and or Space, Space-Time.
  
  In order for Energy to have heat value, a quantity of Energy, of Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularities must be caused to Clump together in Quantity, Mass,
  M being equal to EC^2.
  reply report
60
emrldphxposted 12 years ago
He backed out, claiming the scenario I asked about is irrational and impossible.

This conversation has gotten me started wondering about claims of healing in the bible and energy...

Putting energy into matter in different ways can both destroy the matter(turning it into energy) and create new matter(from the energy). Perhaps God uses energy to directly change things on a molecular level to perform healing?
reply report
1. 84
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Um, those comments do seem a little irrational and impossible. Energy does many things, but turning into matter is not one of them.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Are you just saying that because it doesn't make sense, or are you saying that because you have a solid understanding of physics?
  
  http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a … 0724a.html
  http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/nytimes.html
  
  That's what particle accelerators do.
  
  E=MC^2 is an equation that shows the relationship between matter and energy. The energy contained in any given bit of matter is found by multiplying the mass times the speed of light squared. This is why nuclear explosions are so devistating, a small amount of matter contains a great amount of energy. When we detonate a nuclear device, we are actually converting the matter into energy. With particle accelerators, we can convert energy into matter.
  reply report
  71
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @psycheskinner, where did you learn your physics. I remember a physics textbook in the 1960's that showed a hydrogen bubble chamber with two particles -- one matter and one anti-matter appearing in the middle of the chamber and moving apart in graceful arcs from a single point. Up to that point of origin a powerful laser beam had been shot. Scientific analysis led to the conclusion that matter the energy of the laser beam had turned into matter when some of the photons passed next to the nucleus of one of the hydrogen atoms. Score 1 for science!
  
  But both energy and matter came from something. So did space and time.
  
  They didn't just "happen." There was no accident where "nothing" tripped over nothing else and gave birth to something.
  
  The best evidence of God is the biggest thing He created -- and it currently stands 27.4 billion light years across.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand the problems people have with certain concepts in relativity, because they don't make 'sense', but the denial of things that happen is astonishing to me sometimes.
  
  Fatfist just proved to me that it is impossible to turn energy into matter, because energy doesn't exist.(according to him). So, I guess we've been duped and all the money going into particle accelerators and particle research is just so scientists can stuff their pockets.... I bet the LHC is actually made out of toothpicks and aluminum foil.
  reply report
2. 71
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @emrldphx, some interesting ideas about how divine healing can happen. But how about pure creation. No "middle-men." No "device." No "crutch."
  
  Most people's prayers are pretty wimpy things. Even most of my own. But occasionally, the heavens open up and confidence snaps from ordinary belief to perfect faith. That's when creation happens, whether it be healing, walking on water, creating a storm or subduing one, parting the sea, or parting traffic on Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, 1977.
  
  Ask and you will receive. But most people don't know that for which they ask. They have doubt in their mind, so they get more doubt. They have fear, so they get more fear. Then they blame it on God, saying that He isn't listening. He hears every word and answers every prayer instantaneously and in the affirmative. Skeptics ask for reality and that's exactly what they get.
  
  It couldn't be any simpler.
  reply report
  58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The starving pray for food and get nothing. It couldn't be any simpler.
  reply report
60
Captain Redbeardposted 12 years ago
If I start talking about numbers and equations can I join this discussion?

E=X6^31rd/ 0.0000000079 to the unth degree with the varying factors of T-I double geh RRRRRRRRR
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are free to join no matter what
  
  I was just showing how ridiculous it is to say that two things that each weight 1 gram can fuse together to make something that weighs 500,000 grams.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  forgive my ignorance but isn't that the concept of life? Cells multiplying to create something larger than itself and ultimitly weighing more? A sperm and an egg weigh, i don't know but am guessing, a miniscule amount yet produce someone like myself who is 6 foot 8 inches tall and weighs 245lbs. Is that the same concept?
  reply report
  71
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, Red. That's not it at all. A full grown human body is the combination of sperm, egg and a lot of hamburgers, tacos or rice bowls. You left out that part.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not real strong in biology, someone could better explain it than I could. Our cells don't just divide and grow out of nothing. The cell takes in nutrients to use to create the enzymes it needs for growth, then it splits its dna, forms 2 dna strands, and splits.
  
  But it definitely uses fuel to do so, it doesn't just happen from nothing. That's why we have to eat
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, I can follow that. So the two particles in the accelerator become more dense when they collide? Is that how they weigh more after they bash into each other? If I totally missed the mark again on this one, I'm done and will go back to being a spectator I knew I was in over my head in the first place when I poked my head down this rabbit hole!
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The two particles, let's say they weight 1 gram each, collide and disappear(matter and antimatter do that when they touch). But then, in the release of energy, two w-bosons appear, and they weigh 512,000 grams each.
  
  The only way to explain the gain in mass is that it comes from the energy in the collision.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can follow that train of thought. Is there a debate on current physics laws or something that refute this idea you have?
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not really. There are still details that we don't know for certain and are working on... but considering that we have been able to shoot high-frequency light beams at each other and come up with matter, it's pretty concrete.
  
  The sun makes light by forcing two hydrogen atoms to collide... normally they wouldn't but the tremendous amount of gravity heats the hydrogen up to a point where it moves so violently that it starts to collide. When this happens, the two hydrogen atoms make a helium atoms, and energy is released in the form of heat and light. That energy comes from the kinetic energy in the 'hyperactive' hydrogen, which in turn comes from the gravitational energy in the sun. We have shown so many ways for one type of energy to convert into another, for energy to convert into matter, and for matter to convert into energy.
  
  Unfortunately, not a lot of easily-accessible research-grade information is available online. The types of research papers that particle physicists publish wouldn't make much sense to us, you have to be very strong in math to understand them.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm out then. Math is something completely out of my realm. I recently stumbled across something that is called superfluid. That was interesting to me. It seems whenever we discover something, we need to make a "law" of it, or claim it to be the total truth of the subject, then we stumble across something that breaks that law or negates the truth that was recently discovered. It's kind of like spliting the atom. We thought it was as small as you could get but everytime we divided it and the insides of it more crap fell out.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You've got it... that's what we do in a basic sense... but we don't have anything to base things off of other than what we have seen previously. So far, it's working pretty well. We can travel around the world in airplanes, communicate via cell phones and satellite signals, pinpoint our location with GPS... I think science is headed in the right direction, we keep getting such great new things out of it.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So what are your thoughts time travel? Ronald Mallett seems to think it's achievable.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I certainly don't think it's impossible.
  
  If you want to explore a possibility, you can look at 'understanding the 10th dimension'. It's a website with a movie that explains what 10 dimensions could look like.
  
  Basically, 3 dimensions = lxwxh. When you add motion, you get the 4th dimension 'time'.
  
  This is easy to illustrate with a comic strip. A comic is a single frame. If you add a second frame, you are adding a dimension of change or movement. Similarly, adding 'frames' to a single point of existence makes the 4th dimension.
  
  One possibility for a 5th dimension would be parallel universes, like different possible storylines for our lives. The 6th dimension would include 'folding' time.
  
  If you take a newspaper and fold it to bring two end together, you could imagine an ant walking from one end of the paper, crossing the fold, and being on the other side of the paper. From the paper's perspective, the ant teleported from one location to another. Folding time would work the same way.
  
  The problem is, to fold a newspaper, you have to do it in 3-dimensions... it has lxwxh when you have it folded. So if we folded time, we would have to do so from a higher dimension that what we are in.
  
  Now, from the understanding of the space-time continuum, black holes essentially 'dent' space-time infinitely. It is possible that these 'dents' in space-time could be 'folds' in time that could allow for time travel.
  reply report
  60
  Captain Redbeardposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So if we ever did acheive it do you think we could go backwards before the ability exsisted? Or would we be limited to time and space only to the point of the "machine" being built. A few of the people I have heard speak on the subject say that going back in time before the machine's been built would be impossible.
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you created a machine, that in and of itself were capable of bending time, and went back in time with the machine, it should still have the same properties and capabilities as before. Just as the ant is still an ant after its 'teleportation' trick on the newspaper.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Bending time? You've got to be kidding me, emrldphx. So you claim that time is a physical object, huh? Are you really that insane?
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  In the same sense as bending two dimensions through three dimensions. Unfortunately, we have to resort to using words that weren't designed to describe other dimension.
  
  You claim that light is a wave, not an object... yet we can bend light with gravity... how do you explain that?
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, then that confirms it. You are insane. Time and dimension are concepts. I can bend a stick or a piece of cloth, but it is impossible to bend love, justice, space or time.
  
  What's being 'bent' (distorted) is the particle medium. This causes 'light' (subjective experience) to appear "bent".
  report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  For something residing inside a dimension, it is impossible to imagine. For something residing above that dimension, it is possible to conceptualize.
  
  You have no way of knowing if there are other dimensions. You have no way of proving that there aren't 2-dimensional objects. Of course those things don't make sense because we are 3-dimensional. But, if you open your mind, you start to see how it could be possible.
  
  Right... something you can't define, see, or detect is being bent.
  
  Why can't sound waves ride on this matter? Surely if it is matter it can be pressurized.
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gibberish.
  
  You cannot 'define' objects. You can only define concepts. We detect it as the 'cosmic microwave background radiation'. I already told you that.
  
  Sound waves only propagate through molecules and atoms. Sub-atomic particles move right past these gigantic atoms that are colliding in a wave/domino effect (sound waves).
  report
  0
  Infinite712posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  They didn't come from just two things. The accelerator is not an empty void.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ok, what or where did the bosons come from?
  reply report
71
lone77starposted 12 years ago
@emrldphx, FatFist makes some pretty interesting claims.

I happen to think it's okay to use your own definitions for words, but it makes it difficult to understand if there are too many newly defined words.

How does he "know" that space existed before God? In my worldview, that doesn't make much sense. Energy doesn't exist? What is he smoking? If he moves his fingers to type on his keyboard, he's expending energy. The light from his computer monitor is from the use of energy. Crazy!

And the sentence "the car exists" already has a verb -- "exists."

A verb is not only a word which implies action but also one that implies being.

I guess he didn't do too well in grammar school.

But what does all this have to do with "creationism?"

If you're talking about the stuff that "creation [pseudo-]scientists" like to promote, then creationism is just plain crazy. Their arguments are illogical and ill-founded.

If you're talking about God creating the universe, then that is entirely something different. That is entirely compatible with evolution and an old universe. Biblical literalists think their interpretation of the Bible is equal to that of God, but are afraid to admit it. They simply need more humility. (And don't we all!)
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah.
  
  I have no problem with him... I think his hubs are thought provoking, but contain too many errors to be taken as fact. They are a great point to start discussion from though.
  
  Clarifying words is fine, but trying to redefine saying only objects can exist... it's just a method of circular logic, saying 'I'm right because this definition makes me right and since I'm right that definition is right.'
  
  But hey, it's all fun. I have a specific reason why I'm doing these debates, and I enjoy them, so it's win-win for me.
  reply report
  71
  lone77starposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And I like a win-win!
  reply report
60
paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago
not today, another random thought, then maybe not.
reply report
60
MzChaosposted 12 years ago
I am probably off point but my understanding is that the "nothingness" is similar to the pause between musical notes. And, the "everything that is" is like the notes. I experienced it similar to being in a void and thinking the dark motionless space was - end all, be all of creation, when with a slight shift in perception there was a symphony of light, color, music just to the side.

Personally, I think human beings get trapped when they include perceptions like time (or gravity) in their equations. When time is dropped, then all things are happening simultaneously. The human mind is brilliant about slotting things into compartments, boxing them up, and isolating them for contemplation...it is not as skilled at reversing the process and freeing those structures up to be open and merging with what it has boxed off. It isn't that it can't be done, it's that our minds are not asked to perform in this way...so it is rusty.

What you talk of mostly is defining the difference between an inhale and an exhale, you can have neither without the other.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Time, in it's truest sense, is a dimension; the 4th dimension.
  
  If you have a point, it has 0 dimensions. If you have a second point anywhere else, you can draw a line between the points, and you have 1 dimension - length. If you cross two 1-dimensions together, two intersecting lines, you end up with 2 dimensions - length and width. Then, you have to add a line perpendicular to the other two lines to get to 3 dimensions - length, width, and height.
  
  It is important to realize that if we were 2-dimensional beings living on a flat plane, there would be no way for us to imagine what this 3rd dimension would look like. It would literally look like our universe(flat plane), but stacked on top of itself. Since we live in the plane, we can't see something on top of it. We can only visualize the lower dimensions directly.
  
  Now, take a virtual snapshot of the universe right now. Let's think of that as a point. We wait a minute, and take another snapshot. Let's think of that as a second point. If we draw a line between the two points(meaning we include everything that happens in between), then we have the 4th dimension, time. Just as drawing a line between 2 0-dimensional points gives us the 1st dimension, drawing a line(more like a 3-d movie) between two 3-dimensional points gives us the 4th dimension.
  
  The reason we are so concerned with time, and why our brains are so well suited for the task, is because we reside in 4 dimensions. It would be difficult for any being to truly understand the dimensions below, and nearly impossible to understand the dimensions above.
  
  Now, just for fun, we can create a 5th dimension by crossing 2 4-dimensional 'lines'. How? Just as the two lines on paper intersect, two 4-dimensional lines would intersect where they share the same point(moment of time). What can possibly make these crosses? Choices. Let's start a timeline now. In one, I wear a red shirt, and I go to the library. In another timeline(possible choice) I wear a red shirt, and I go to the grocery store. Both timelines are at the same point at the red shirt, but go their separate ways. If you lay out choice like this, kind of like a series of 3-d comic strips, you would have the 5th dimension, which includes all possible scenarios of existence.
  
  The 6th dimension is easy. From 2 to 3, you just stack an infinite number of planes on top of each other to get height. To go from 5 to 6, you stack an infinite number of these 'total possible scenario comic strips' on top of each other... each set would be from a different universe.
  
  Anyway, I just wanted to say that for one reason. Just as something that was 2 dimensional wouldn't be able to fully understand or see the 3rd dimension, we can't see higher dimensions. We can't even understand fully any dimensions except for 3 and 4. That's why we talk about time... we live in it... it is the dimension we live in.
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not certain that all sentient beings are experiencing the same dimension though, or at least, it hasn't been my experience. Seems to me that the more willing we are to allow the mind to consider alternate possibilities, the more often structures are challenged, and sometimes allow to disintegrate. Interesting word that...dis-integrate, becoming less integrated. Our words seem backward often.
  
  You have a very articlate grasp on explaining many of these concepts in a very linear fashion. That's a skill. I enjoy time. But I have also seen with my own eyes, and experienced with my own body, alternate passages of time...so, it might be a factor in calculating a theory of reality - if you want to box a particular reality up and label it, I don't think any 2 people actually have the exact same reality. Mine seems to be more abnormal than most.
  
  I am not out here much on Hubpages. I feel honored to have run across your post. I think I will follow for awhile.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you MzChaos. At some level, everything is subjective. Truly, we have no way of knowing what our reality is like compared to anothers' reality.
  
  I've often wondered, if I switched bodies with someone else, and looked through their eyes, would colors look the same to me, or different? Perhaps some people see things others don't...
  
  I tend to stay away from philosophical discussion because, honestly, it scares me to think my entire existence might just be someone else's dream...
  
  Maybe you are more prone to seeing in 5 dimensions than other people...
  
  I'll look through your hubs, I would be interested in your opinion on things according to what I've read so far
  
  Thanks for responding friend
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  LOL, no fear of being only someone elses dream - The dream and the dreamer always go hand in hand. You made me laugh. You seem to like to go after concrete things that you can add a formula to and make it be "real". I like to play with things...like what you said about the colors through anothers eyes. I like to take concepts I hear about and then practice them...like being inside a car driving and watching as the scenery goes by and understanding that I haven't really moved at all - I am still sitting in the car, the same enclosed atmosphere, and the only thing that has really changed is how fast my mind is allowing the scenery to change around me.
  
  I liked your layering up of dimensions...it's logical and easy to follow. I don't think the mind, certainly not energy, or consciousness - adhere the all the rules we like to use as people to make things look pretty. We try to understand our nature using what ever tools become available that helps us to gleen just one iota more about ourselves and what it is all about. I can't really see any of it being wrong. There have been other comments made that I didn't respond to because the statements themselves can only be validated if you use some form of judgment...if you do not judge something as in or out, good or bad, black or white, nothing or something...then it becomes an equal and valid option, and there becomes less of a need to alienate it or embrace it - it simply becomes another part of the structure we can embrace freely if we choose.
  
  I didn't realize you could have a forum like this. Very interesting. I like the comments you make and you seem to get people a bit riled up - good for you. Anythng that makes people think and challenge what they always hold as true is probably a good thing. Thank you for the comment on my hub...I try to play out here with some different writing styles and sometimes to articulate things that are difficult for me to explain....like the time piece I wrote, it's easy to grasp and harder to write...like a dream.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, that kind of thing makes me dizzy. Like sitting in a car in a parking lot, and the car next to you starts to back out... all of a sudden I'm hitting the break and trying to figure out what's going on
  
  My thought is, after this life, we're going to have what essentially would be a very large family reunion, without the drama of course. At that time, I think we will 'remember' a lot of the things that are so impossible to us here. I used to be so very black/white about everything, but when I got out of my shell I found the beauty in the colors of variety.
  
  Haha, I don't know if that really does any good for anyone... I wish they would just respond maturely and have a discussion, but you never know what kind of person you are talking to until you talk to them.
  
  That, I definitely agree with.
  
  I looked at that hub... going to have to look at it again
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your profile has a comment about memory...I would love to get into a discussion on that. (But you have to be willing to have your mind blown away)! Possibly. I am so full of myself sometimes I can barely stand the arrogance, good thing I don't think that is necessarily a wrong thing. Go write something on memory or point me in a direction if you had a hub that is mostly directed at that topic. Most of what I have glanced through are religious semantics - no?
  
  You think the parking lot and moving cars is odd. I have to be careful if I wear a dress with tiny polka dots because my mind uses it as a reason to become very abstract, talk about some vertigo. Imagine walking across a parking lot, looking down at your legs moving and becoming ensnared by the motion of tiny dots on a dark background...and then falling, down...or just feeling like it. It's very disconcerting. Gravity is makes things like the ground very hard.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I made this forum thread when I joined:
  
  http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/85597
  
  My current hubs on memory are specifically addressed to mnemonic techniques.
  
  If none of those work, you could make a topic about it in the Education forum.
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The thing I noticed to help improve memory (2 things actually)...
  1. Games help alot, remembering what the pattern is that has been flopping on a poker table...What current specials are running on which game that expires on which date. I know that seems lame but the memory function is all about exercising like a particular muscle. Logic puzzles.
  2. This is maybe more abstract and philosophical...but never doubt your memory. It is always right and always true. There are places and space you can enter when what you thought you remembered has suddenly become irrefutably proven to be incorrect. If you allow that the memory must have in some way failed you, then you have undermined the purpose and function of your memory. By it's nature, it remembers. So, if I said to day that the sky was black yesterday and we were standing in the same location and you know the sky you saw was red...and then I whip out a picture and show you the black sky from yesterday...That doesn't mean anything, except we had different experiences. That is a lame example but I can't think of a better one at the moment.
  
  You are already playing with memory techniques, as in...EGBDF...perhaps try taking a short list of words and definitions (vocabulary sheet) and not only memorizing the word and definition but practice seeing the document in its entirity...like photographic memory. It works, takes some practice and I can't guarantee you will keep it for long. The problem mostly is if the mind doesn't think its "important" (you never forget it) it simply gets harder to recall.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have a lot more than just simple mnemonic devices to work with That's just all I've written about so far.
  
  I've come across some amazing memorization development programs... I find the best ones are the ones that make you practice. Using things I had learned, I was able to memorize all the pertinent data, in order, of an entire textbook.
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I presume, at some point you will write hubs about what you have learned and those techniques? And, hopefully, some insight as to why this is important to you. Not that I don't think it's important, only that I am curious on why you feel it is important for you to do.
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I've got things I'm working on that will come out over the next month. I'm actually working on a more practical memory development course. My current favorites require hours of intense practice every day. I want to give people something more reasonable.
  reply report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am interested in seeing it.
  report
  51
  paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  me also
  report
  60
  MzChaosposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was editing as you were commenting...
  reply report
0
jomineposted 12 years ago
Very good, emrldphx, since you describe time as something, just like apple, all you have to do is show a photograph of this “time”, no other argument is needed.

What is “TIME”?

Are you so idiotic not to understand “evidence” is subjective?

Please show as some “events”. Time is the different locations of matter. What we call time is the different locations of sun with respect to us.

For all the garbage you post, you deserve it.

So you understand an apple or visualize it? Please show the picture of energy. No light will do, you have to show the picture of “ability to work”. You can provide a picture of light if you can describe it.

What do you do in your free time? Bend length and stretch love?

What do you use, crstal balls, to predict??

Can you never understand?? What he says is not that there is no motion, what he says is that, it is the memory of motion, that is called time.

Really?? What I can see is the change of location of object, no events!!

Seriously emrldphx, Are you so incapable of thinking?
When you are asked what is exist, you say ‘real’. When asked what is real, you say ‘to be’. When asked what is to be, you say ‘exist’. Got from where you started, without anybody, any wiser-circular synonyms, no definition.
Only objects have physical presence, or anything with a physical presence is called an object. Anything that has physical presence has a 3D shape. We use the word Exist to denote physical presence. But man is a ‘subjective’ creature. Anything he can feel is a reality to him, hence all subjective definition for exist, in laymen dictionary. Science, there is no laymen dictionary, all important words are defined to make clear its exact meaning, than the same meaning is used through out consistently. If you cannot do that, you are doing religion. There is no difference between you and a troubled man, both are religious to the core and bow to authority, never THINK critically.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Objects aren't the only 'things'. Thing = a device, product, or part of nature. The point I made is that things still exist without a word to describe them. The phenomenon we call 'gravity' still exists without us to give it a word. We use words to describe objects, events, and concepts.
  
  Even without us, the progression of events, or progression of static states in the universe would still happen. It happened before we called it 'time', and it would happen if we weren't around to call it 'time'.
  
  If you bothered to read back a little you would see that I defined time several times. Time is 'the system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future.'. Another, simpler way of stating it is 'the progression of events' or 'the progression of static states'. Time is the word we use to describe how the universe is dynamic.
  
  Is there some kind of school you all attend where they teach you how to ignore logic and resort to personal attacks when you don't have anything better to say?
  
  I can hold up a rock, let it go, and it will fall. I can do this in front of you. You can do it. It's evidence that rocks fall when you hold them up and let go. If you say that is subjective, then you either don't understand the word, or you have a problem being able to connect cause and effect.
  
  I think I understand. You are talking about time as units of measurement, hours, sunrise and sunset, etc... correct?
  
  If you think something is garbage, why don't you show why? Just saying it is garbage is just about as useful as saying nothing at all.
  
  Like I haven't already addressed this idea... something doesn't have to be visible to exist. Can you move a magnet by pushing another magnet near it? Yes you can, without them touching. Something that you can't see is moving matter.
  
  By your criteria, if you can't draw a picture of what moves the magnet, then it doesn't exist. Even though it happens every anyone tries it, it doesn't exist.
  
  Do you see the problem with your logic?
  
  'The ability to do work' is the generic definition of energy. Energy is a generic term that encompasses the different types of energy. Specific types of energy have more specific definitions.
  
  Did I say that?
  
  What are you talking about? Read up on 'The Hafele-Keating Experiment':
  
  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct= … Nvkve2a-TA
  
  Using nothing other than math based off of existing knowledge and experimental results, scientists accurately predicted how much the time on these clocks would differ from their 'twins' by flying them around the world in different directions.
  
  No crystal balls, just math.
  
  At least you defined time. Unfortunately, that is not the definition of time. Where did you get that definition?
  
  There are asteroids that we don't know of that are moving. Or, more correctly, we know of, but don't know what their paths are, or where they came from. Still, time goes on.
  
  People can't just make up definitions to suit their arguments. You have to use words according to their definitions in your arguments. There is a difference between the two approaches.
  
  An event is: something that happens. When an asteroid moves between two locations, that 'something' is movement. Movement qualifies as an event.
  
  All language is based off of circular synonyms. Are you actually Fatfist? This is the same argument he gave me, but he deleted my reply.
  
  All language is circular because every word is defined with other words. There are no 'base words' which aren't defined by other words.
  
  Would you like to try defining exist, real, and be?
  
  Who is 'we'? Who decides what 'exist' means? You?
  
  I have a question. If you aren't going to use the definitions of words as defined by the English language, what language do you want to speak?
  
  If we don't use the definitions of words, but all make up our own definitions, how can we communicate?
  
  I have defined my terms. Your only argument against my terms is that they are 'circular synonyms'. If you will please define the words exist, real, and be, I will show you how ALL language depends on circular synonyms.
  
  Or, can you show me ANY word that isn't defined by other words?
  
  Your arguments rely on your definitions. Its nothing more than word-play. I can prove that objects don't exist if we use the definition 'idea + energy'. We use established definitions so that everyone can talk about the same thing.
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are hopelessly religious. You are again just posting synonyms, not definition.
  Phenomenon of gravity does not exist, it is the medium that mediate gravity, that exists. All words are concepts, but some word resolve to objects. Concepts are relation between objects. Events do not exist, events occur, and objects are the actors of an event.
  
  Progression of static states?? Like walking by standing still!!
  
  Ridiculus. “System of sequential relations between events”?? Only objects have relation with each other, not events.
  
  What does that prove??
  
  So many people have clearly showed that to you.
  
  Who told you about visibility? Question is, has it got a “SHAPE”, or don’t you understand the difference?
  
  Exactly, you define concepts. You show, draw or visualize objects.
  
  In the comment section of the hub you read, I have described how it was a failure.
  
  Time, listen, is the different locations of an object that is the different locations of sun, in relation to us. It needs a sentient being with memory to conceive time, as time is the memory of the previous locations. Objects moved in relation to each other even before humans, only animals with memory have the "feeling" of time.
  
  When the asteroid changes location, it is called movement. It is that asteroid that exists, not movement.
  
  It is science we are talking about, not laymen language. Even in laymen language, confusion arises when people uses words with multiple meanings and where the context is obsure.
  
  Already defined, PHYSICAL PRESENCE. Are you incapable of understanding???
  
  With out proper definitions, how are you going to understand what the other person is saying??
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you would have done as I asked and actually defined your terms, I can show you how all language is circular. Since there are no 'base words', everything uses other words to define itself.
  
  Your antiquidated view of what is real and isn't shows. You tell me what causes gravity, and show it. By your own criteria that's what you have to do.
  
  No, a series of static states. A static state as in a snapshot of the universe. Think of it like a movie. When you put a bunch of frames together, you can have movement. The same thing with time. Time represents the 'frames' of reality. Your definition of time being the relationship of the sun to the earth... Do you use a sundial still? There is this thing called science that discovers new things.
  
  If you are who I think you are, you use a 2,000+ year-old model of cause and effect. Of course nothing new makes sense to you.
  
  An event: something that happens. If an asteroid travels from one point to another, we can call that an event. Got it?
  
  It proves that when you hold up a rock and let it go, it will fall. Does that really not make sense to you?
  
  So many people? We have you, fatfist, and infinite who use a 2,000 year-old model of reality. You can't explain how magnetism works, but you somehow know that it doesn't have anything to do with fields.
  
  You haven't backed up any of your points with any viable evidence. Just re-stating your own definitions for words which are different from the actual meaning of the words.
  
  You say only things with shape exist... so explain magnetism, please.
  
  We've been over this.
  
  You can draw pictures of fields and radiation as well. No, they don't fit your requirement for reality, but if you can't explain them some other way...
  
  It wasn't a failure. It was a difficult test with commercial airlines, ground time, and less-accurate clocks than we have now.
  
  If it's not good enough for you, then how about these?
  
  http://resource.npl.co.uk/docs/publicat … nstein.pdf
  
  http://www.npl.co.uk/news/time-flies
  
  Better equipment, better scenarios, fantastic results.
  
  We measure time in units, which we derive from the sun and our relationships to it. The measurement isn't the thing though. We give a word to the procession of the universe: 'time'. With or without us, the procession still occurs.
  
  You addressed a different part of the subject than I did... hence the confusion.
  
  Movement qualifies for the definition of an event.
  
  If you disagree, you have to re-define event like you re-define exist.
  
  When we talk about science in English, we use English words. There is no confusion except when people like you insist on re-defining words to fit their own arguments. You can't admit that light, energy, or magnetism exist, because your definitions are based off of Aristotle's rules of cause and effect.
  
  We're a little bit past Aristotle at this point. 2000 years past.
  
  I said, if you would define those terms, I could demonstrate how all language depends on itself to define itself. All language contains circular synonyms. So... define the words.
  
  Exactly! That's why we use the real definitions of words. You have no reason to use your definition of exist, except for the fact that it supports your argument.
  reply report
60
Disappearingheadposted 12 years ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that forum etiquette dictated that thread comments were supposed to be short and succinct, with perhaps some humour. But what I see above is a load of long winded hot air ramblings that bore me after a couple paragraphs.

May be it's just me being shallow.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I use the forum for that too
  
  It is also a good place for 'thicker' discussion. Sorry to bore you
  reply report
2. 58
  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. Most of the entire thread is made up of those who really haven't a clue what they're talking about. Lots of hand waving going on, which is probably what's boring you. I would agree with you.
  reply report
65
aka-djposted 12 years ago
Thanks emrldphx!

I congratulate you on calling these guys out, and putting them in their place.
I have seen this method of argument all too often. It always deteriorates to name calling, ridicule and redefining words to support a ridiculous argument.

If time doesn't exist, then what are the likes of these "geniuses" doing using logic to base their arguments on, in particular, relative to creation? These would be the same ones who lean on scientific evidence (which they disregard in all their posts) as evidence of evolution, old Earth and abiogenesis.

They demand evidence to support an argument, yet provide not a single shred themselves.

I have, on numerous occasions provided links as evidence of points I made, and was told that these would not be read, as a mere waste of their time. There was nothing their that deserved any effort of investigation on their part.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The thing that really gets me, is there are people who are supposedly different individuals, but somehow they all use their own definitions for a few key terms... I wonder where they first read and adopted these definitions.
  
  They think time is just our word for the sun rising and setting, our location in relation to the sun... last time I checked, we haven't considered that as the only meaning of time since we stopped using sundials.
  
  I know, it can be frustrating. Their best evidence is repeating their own personal opinions, louder and louder.
  
  Interesting how they know what information is and isn't there without looking, right? I'm still waiting for any of these three to explain how gravity or magnetism work if there are no such things as forces, waves, or fields.
  
  Thanks for your comment... I fear the internet will ruin society when the average reader considers everything they read to be true... the number of comments on some of these hubs along the lines of 'wow, I never thought of that, but you're right!' is troubling...
  reply report
59
Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years ago
I cant see why people still argue about this nonsense. The bible talks of talking donkeys, taling snakes, living in a fish for 3 days, a global flood and people still argue that it is true.

It makes me wonder. We really are a stupid race. I see no intelligence among many humans. Only a few posses enough intelligence to realise that the concept of the bible god is baloney.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for you input Jwah.
  
  I find that often the most intelligent people are the ones who are open to the possibility of new ideas.
  reply report
  59
  Jesus was a hippyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree entirely. There is actually evidence that those with a lower IQ are more closed minded and refuse to accept that their beliefs may or may not be true.
  
  Instead they use sentences like "my faith will never be shaken" and "you can never destroy my faith".
  
  Of course these people can never explain why faith is supposed to be a virtue.
  reply report
0
jomineposted 12 years ago
Only a relativist can say such nonsense, congratulations you qualify.

A point is TWO dimensional; in fact all figures are two dimensional and all objects three dimensional. I have included a magnified photo of a “point”, hope at least that will bring some sense.

YOU: exist = real = to be = exist [synonyms, circular]
ME: Exist =physical presence =object + location, where in the hell is it circular?
At least find out the difference between definition and synonym.

Time represents a frame; you mean you derive time from a photograph? Time is dynamic, it need minimum two frames to interpret. Or are you inferring motion from photographs, great clairvoyance you got!
Time is a measurement, and sun is the standard to which we compare, just like the 1 kg standard kept in France to standardize all weights.

Something happens?? An event is not something.

It proves that when you dropped the ball it fell, not that it will happen next time. You only know it because you have rehearsed it a 1000 times. If it is a feather, or if it is an iron with a magnet suspended above, or if it is a magician that drops it, it won’t fall down.

You are a moron and you excel in that. Here it once more, all evidence/proof are SUBJECTIVE. In Scientific method, there is hypothesis and theory, and theory is the rational explanation, no evidence, no proofs.....

Great I like to see a stand alone field, radiation and a wave(with out water).

We gave name to the procession (motion) of matter in the universe-time. It is just motion and is a concept, or you do not understand what you say.

As long as you have no definition, we have to stick with mine.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tell you what. As soon as you can describe why two clocks travelling at different velocities change, then we'll talk. So far, you have avoided my question.
  
  That's not a point. That is a representation of a 2-dimensional shape. Pick up a Geometry book and look up the definition again. A point is a zero dimensional notion.
  
  Ok, define object and location. I really hope you can stay with me here. I will show you how ALL language is circular. If you have X number of words, and every word is defined with other words, then there is no such thing as a 'base' word.
  
  Did I say time represents a frame? Read it again. Time represents the frames of reality... the transition from frame to frame. Try to make sure you know what I'm saying before you attack it.
  
  You're so close. Time is a measurement of the progression of reality, the progression from frame to frame. We use the sun to define the units of time, not to define time itself. Days and hours are based off the cycle of the earth around the sun... they are the units we use to measure time, not time itself. It's the same as how a kg is used to measure weight, but a kg isn't 'weight'.
  
  Why not? I didn't say an object. I said something. Do you know what a thing is? It's not the same as an object. I'll provide a definition since you can't look it up yourself.
  
  Do you understand? More than objects qualify as things. Look at definitions 2-5 for examples.
  
  Do you understand how science works? When a hypothesis predicts the results of an experiment, we can develop exact math for it and call it a theory. If the theory predicts other theories and is the basis for more successful research for a long enough time we call it a law. When something has been shown to be a law, it is considered scientific proof. You can argue about semantics all you want, but that's what it is. I use the dictionary definitions for words whenever possible, as the common meaning of words applies to the widest range of audience.
  
  A feather won't fall? And I've seen magicians drop objects.
  
  If you want to say there is no such thing as proof:'sufficient evidence to show a thing as true', then you might as well give up all discussion altogether, because in 1 minute the butterfly whose dream you are a part of is going to wake up.
  Can you define 'evidence' and 'proof' as you understand it to me? If you don't want to use the real definitions of words, you should make that clear from the start.
  
  The scientific method contains much more than hypothesis and theory. You and the others(if you're not them) repeat these arguments verbatim. The scientific method wouldn't work if all we did was hypothesize and theorize.
  
  Here is a visualization of a magnetic field. Remember, you said 'you show, draw, or visualize objects'. I'm applying your exact requirements.
  
  http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/phys … _field.jpg
  
  Radiation/wave:
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … omside.gif
  
  I say we give a word to the procession(which denotes movement) of the universe. You say I"m wrong because be give a word to the procession of matter in the universe. I fail to see any real difference in your definition and mine.
  
  Yes, the word is a concept. It represents the procession of the universe.
  
  Answer this question: Would the procession of matter in the universe happen without us to observe it?
  
  I do have a definition, actually. We have a dictionary for that kind of thing. Do you have a better reason to change the definition?
  reply report
  0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Answered.
  
  So you do not even know what ‘0’ is!!
  
  Object is that which has shape, location is the relation of one object to another. Try to understand what science is all about. A definition is a statement that shows the exact meaning of the key term. You can ramble as long as you please about not using your dictionary that does not give definition but only synonyms.
  
  And yet you say time is “something”. It is just a measurement, which need a sentient being to measure, a concept, that which is only in the mind.
  
  Then what is this “an inanimate object”(from the dictionary you provided), a ‘thing’, ‘it’ ‘object’ are all synonyms.
  
  In your religion, of course.
  
  That was a god joke, indeed. Hypothesis predicting the results of experiments, then from maths calling it a theory. You fool, the whole physics is about the workings of our universe, an explanation. But you do not even know the difference between description and explanation. Who taught you?
  
  A law is just a description of the observed nature.
  
  Just like a preacher preaching, the audience interprets their meanings, like the proverbial emperors cloth. Science is not audience dependent. And it is to convey the meaning clearly, precisely and unambiguously, before a scientific dissertation, the presenter define all his key words.
  
  And you might have seen them levitating. It only means your prediction is depended on your previous experience.
  
  Who is going to decide what is sufficient? It is subjective interpretation, if you can understand.
  
  Argument from ignorance.
  
  The universe is not going anywhere. Universe is a concept for the all matter and space. What happens is the matter always changes its location to each other. And that motion we interpret as time.
  
  And yet that concept dilates, what is dilating exactly? The procession of universe?
  
  Great what I see a ball(earth) with so many lines around, where is the field? If you put so many rods together, you call it a field?
  
  Here I provide a microscopic picture of your wave crest. So what is waving in your “radiation”?
  
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You still aren't explaining anything. You are trying to generally describe it. You say clocks are made of atoms that are connected by strings to the earth and when they move the strings are like elastics and can change the motion of the atoms.
  
  I'm sorry, but that isn't anything near an objective, empirical explanation. It barely qualifies as the seed of a hypothesis. You didn't explain the difference between a clock moving east and a clock moving west. You didn't explain what these 'strings' are. You didn't explain how the strings would affect the atoms(you just said that they would).
  
  Actually, I do. That is what a point is. If it has length, width, or depth, it's not a point anymore. A line is a one-dimensional continuity of all points between any two given points. A plane is a two-dimensional continuity of parallel lines. Three dimensions is a continuity of stacked planes.
  
  It's really very basic.
  
  "location is the relation of one object to another". I assume you mean 'location is the relationship between two objects'(your phrase corrected for proper grammar.
  
  I have two objects, one is 2-meters wide, one is 1-meter wide. The 2-meter wide object is twice as large as the 1-meter object. They are related by a doubling in size... how does that have anything to do with location?
  
  Did you mean 'location is the spatial relationship between two objects'? If so, please define spatial.
  
  If you don't understand yet, you have to play the game. Define shape and spatial(or whatever clarifying word you choose).
  
  All definitions rely on other words. So, if you define those other words with more words, you will always end up with circular synonyms.
  
  For the word to exist, yes, we need a mind. For the thing it represents, we don't. I probably shouldn't have used the word measurement, I was trying to word the definition differently(that's what teachers do, they try different ways of explaining things). The best definition of time is the progression of the universe.
  
  I showed you, a concept is something. I didn't say a concept is an object.
  
  One definition includes inanimate objects. Rocks, dirt, a baseball, etc... Objects.
  
  Another definition is 'anything that is or may become an object of thought', ideas and concepts. Realities that can't be seen.
  
  Another definition includes 'a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs'. Facts count as 'things'. If thing and object meant the exact same thing, we wouldn't have both words. Synonyms are words with similar meaning, not the same meaning.
  
  When all else fails, call something a religion to discredit it. The 'thing' you are calling a religion is the English language my friend. You can continue to speak your own language with your own definitions, but to do so you should understand that people won't truly understand you, and you won't truly understand them. You cause a lot of misunderstanding by using words differently. In essence, you truly are speaking your own language, tailored to fit your arguments.
  
  You don't know that hypothesis' are supposed to be able to make predictions? You don't know that we experiment to test a hypothesis? You don't know that we use math to describe concepts and forces?
  
  I know the difference between describe and explain. I told you I can use math to explain why a rock falls down instead of up. I didn't say I can explain gravity in general. Just like you haven't explained gravity. We don't understand it. We understand it's effects though.
  
  I know it's difficult, but can you try to remain civil?
  
  I forget, you don't like what the word 'proof' means, so you use proof = opinion, don't you?
  
  Of course then, there is no such thing as objective proof, with your definition.
  
  With the english definition, however, there is such a thing.
  
  Yes, before a scientific dissertation, a speaker must obviously define his key terms, without using other words that could be interpreted differently by an audience.
  
  See, this is what you fail to grasp. ALL definitions require other words to define them. You will always be using some form of circular synonyms.
  
  Most people can grasp the concept of basic words that are used everyday, like object, location, exist, to be, etc... Clarification of scientific terms is used for uncommon words, such as 'abiogenesis', 'mitosis', etc...
  
  No, I have never seen anyone levitate. I consider never having seen any evidence that an object won't fall when someone lets go, and tens of thousands of times when objects do fall, sufficient evidence to establish gravity as true.
  
  In a court of law we would use the rational man. Of course EVERYTHING that we experience is subjective to one degree or another. There isn't a single thing you see, hear, feel, or experience that isn't processed through your brain, and including your brain makes it subjective. If you want to argue that line you belong more in philosophy than science.
  
  Argument from ignorance? Really? Argument from ignorance is saying something is true because it hasn't been proven false or vice versa. That's not what I said. I said, if all we did was hypothesize and theorize, the scientific method wouldn't work. The scientific method requires experimentation to gather data, and analysis of that data.
  
  Don't just try pulling out logical fallacies.
  
  And since you started that game, your fallacy is failing to provide proof of this supposed 'argument from ignorance'. Ironic, isn't it, that in trying to point out what you thought was a logical fallacy, you did so in a logically fallacious manner.
  
  Try and follow. Universe represents all the matter and space. I said procession of the universe. If a = b, then you can use a or b. So, you can take what I said to be 'procession of all the matter and space'. You're arguing the same thing I said, but you don't realize it.
  
  When we say a concept does something, we are saying that the thing it represents does something. When we say time dilates, we are saying that there is a difference in elapsed time between two observers depending on their situation. If you go on a flight with an atomic clock, to you the clock will continue to 'tick' at the exact same speed as before the flight. However, when you get back to where you started, the reference clock, which was synchronized to your clock, will show a different time.
  
  I think that's the part you have a hard time with. Two moving clocks, moving at different speeds, and for people watching them, they tick at the same speed. But, when they meet up, they aren't the same like you would expect.
  
  Just like the speed of light. It's constant. If I were traveling 50% of the speed of light past you and turned on a flashlight, I would measure the light moving away from me at C. You would expect that you would measure it at 1.5C, but you wouldn't, you would measure it at C.
  
  You seem to have a hard time grasping these paradoxes. I admit they are confusing, but they have been scientifically verified with experiments.
  
  You said 'see, draw, or visualize'. This is a visualization. Just like you can't see an electron or an atom. We can only visualize them and draw representations.
  
  The lines represent the field.
  
  You don't understand. These 'waves' aren't like vibrations in water, or like sound vibrations in air. They are wave-like in the way that they travel. The best way to visualize it is like a spinning corkscrew flying through a vacuum. It doesn't require 'carrier matter'.
  
  I know you will come back with 'no such thing as motionless matter', but until you can show me what matter transmits radiation, you have no evidence.
  reply report
0
jomineposted 12 years ago
I didn’t DESCRIBE what those strings are.

When two atoms are connected by a string and if one moves anybody can infer what may happen to other.

Correct, it will be an object. A point has only length and width, no height. There is no figure with two dimensions as “0”.

A line too, is two dimensional. You will never able to draw a line with the width “0”. However small it may be,it still should be above “0”.
[A point is an exact position or location on a plane surface. It is important to understand that a point is not a thing, but a place]
But can you define a point, without telling me that it is a location. A point is not a location, a point is 2D figure. If point is a location, then you cannot say “A line is a one-dimensional continuity of all points between any two given points. “{for location is a concept that denotes relation of one object to another, while point is a figure}

Location is the distance of the study object with all other objects.

Shape and distance??
Beyond this what anybody can do is just show it to you, as you do not understand anything, but can show it, unlike your real, to be…
Unlike the synonyms you gave, these never go back to exist.
For the last time I’m telling, a definition is not a synonym. A definition is a “statement of the EXACT meaning of a word”, not all the meanings of the word, and in science that definition has to be OBJECTIVE and followed through out.

If it represent a “THING”, you should be able to point to it, like you point to an apple or chair. You point at something and name it. Can you point at time?

No you didn’t, you haven’t shown anything. And a concept by definition is nothing, just an idea.

'anyTHING that is or may become an object of thought'
And we define before presentation not to confuse between the two meanings. If you still didn’t understand that, you are never going to and it is better you leave science. Well of course, you can still place yourself as a scientist as the relativists do, and you will get idiots like aka dj or ATM to follow you.

No, it is the irrational usage of language in science.

I’m all ears!!

It will be difficult. I’m a teacher who teaches adults, and what I can’t tolerate is nonsense.

Yet the court does not rely on it 100%. With all the “proofs” and “evidences” the court is still going for “beyond reasonable doubt”. Even a lawyer understands proofs are subjective.

I didn’t hear you defining exist.
Let me show you an example.
Hypothesis: Let us assume god(or time or wave) “exist”
Theory: god(or t or w) exists hence……

See, here exist is the key word, hence it is absolutely necessary to define “exist”.

Please tell me what gravity is.
You are just validating my point, that you know it will fall to ground next time you drop it because you have seen it a thousand times before and/or you have seen only that.

The earth and sun are still there, whether you are there to “process” it or not.

In scientific method , there is only hypothesis and theory. You do experiments in technology and medicine.

Procession of all matter is possible, but space cannot move, so you cannot say procession of universe.

What observer observes is subjective. Science is objective. So it doesn’t matter what the two people “thought”

Foolishness from relativity. If speed is distance travelled by time, and if you use a standard time and distance, then the speed of anything is a constant, irrespective of your speed. I think what you want to say was the speed of light is irrespective of the speed of the source. The simplest reason is that ‘light’ like ‘sound’ is not on the source to pick the speed of the source.

Verified??

Certainly, good visualization.
But there is a slight problem, A field is “an area constructed, equipped, or marked”, that is it is an area we marked. So how can it be a few “rods/lines”? Suppose you say paddy field(or America), it is a small area you marked/ or drawn from a larger area(or continent/earth), that means it is a concept. In this case you drew a few lines to mark an area, but there was no “field” in it, there was only a marked area.

So what is travelling??
Why that 'whatever' travels in a sine wave pattern instead of a straight line, what is the factor that make it travel in undulating fashion?

That is my question. What is radiating??

What is that red and blue lines?
And you are yet to show the thing you call"time"
reply report
1. 0
  jomineposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Please draw a line with only length(that is "0" width and "0" height. length you choose, for me even 1cm will do).
  reply report
  60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is impossible to draw a 1-dimensional line in 3-dimensional space. Only representations.
  reply report
2. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Explain:
  1. to make plain or clear; render understandable or intelligible: to explain an obscure point.
  2. to make known in detail: to explain how to do something.
  3. to assign a meaning to; interpret.
  
  You didn't do either. You are such a stickler for explain/describe, but you must have a different meaning of the word explain.
  
  You can either:
  
  1 - Explain what the strings are.
  2 - Describe the strings.
  
  This is your argument? They are connected by strings, so obviously anybody can understand why clocks tick slower or faster when they move?
  
  Let me make myself clear, I want you to explain the details of your hypothesis.
  
  There is no 3-dimensional figure with 2 dimensions, yes. What's your point? You came in and argued that a point is 2-dimensional. It's not. Do you have another point?
  
  No, a line is one-dimensional. We aren't talking about drawing a line, because any drawing involves 3-dimensional matter. I didn't say anything about a 3-dimensional representation of a 1-dimensional line.
  
  Seriously, crack open a Geometry book and learn some things.
  
  No, a point is NOT a 2D figure! By definition, 2-dimensions constitute a plane.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_(geometry)
  http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Plane.html
  http://www.thefreedictionary.com/two-dimensional+figure
  http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/ … 18769.html
  
  Do you need more? We aren't talking about a line on a piece of paper. We are talking about 0,1,2,3+ dimensions.
  
  Location does not require an object. I can point at a spot in space with no objects. Your insistence on everything requiring objects to exist acts like blinders for your understanding.
  
  ? The distance of the study object with all other objects? That doesn't even make sense my friend. Is English your native language? If it is, maybe you should take some refresher courses. If it isn't, you shouldn't be trying to tell a native speaker of English what the definitions of words are.
  
  Location is a particular place or position.
  
  Of course shape and distance don't necessarily have to go back to exist. The point is, all definitions are based on words, and have circularity built in. Here, I'll help you.
  
  Shape: The external form or appearance of someone or something.
  Form: The visible shape or configuration of something.
  
  All language becomes circular. Your argument about 'exist' and 'to be' is ridiculous and shows you don't understand how language works.
  
  1 - Any statement of the meaning of a word will use other words. Those words are all defined by other words. Etc etc... eventually, any word will be defined circularly. I've shown that, but you gave up when you could only define 'shape' by using words like form, which are defined with words like shape.
  
  2 - Words have more than one meaning. Your requirements for a definition don't fit reality. For instance, location can mean a particular place. It can also mean the process of locating something. You wanting to require that every word only has one precise definition simply shows your ignorance about language.
  
  3 - An objective definition doesn't mean it has to be based on an object. I can understand if you thought that, but that's not what the word means. Objectivity in science means the lack of bias based on personal belief and thinking.
  
  Once again, 'thing' doesn't apply only to objects! Can't you read?
  THING
  1. a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.
  2. some entity, object, or creature that is not or cannot be specifically designated or precisely described: The stick had a brass thing on it.
  3. anything that is or may become an object of thought: things of the spirit.
  4. things, matters; affairs: Things are going well now.
  5. a fact, circumstance, or state of affairs: It is a curious thing
  
  Your definition of thing is skewed. An idea is not 'nothing'. An idea is an idea, nothing is nothing. The two are NOT synonyms.
  
  You are funny. You are trying to 'define before presentation' for me, after I made an argument. If you wanted clarification, you could ask 'what do you mean by a 'point' or a 'thing'. Instead, you are trying to refudiate my argument by redefining my terms. If you can't understand how ridiculous that is, then I'm sorry, but it's not my fault.
  
  Ok, we have gravity. According to you, only objects exist. Draw gravity for me. Or, draw the process. Show me the objects.
  
  Your version of science is ridiculous. Your hypothesis' you present are little more than seeds of ideas, with no descriptions, explanations, predictions, or methods of testing. Don't try and lecture me on science when you don't have the slightest clue of the scientific method.
  
  It's difficult to make a visual for you on a forum thread using just text.
  
  A=Acceleration due to gravity
  G=Earth's gravitational constant = 6.6726 x 10^-11N-m^2/kg^2
  M=Earth's mass
  R=Earth's radius
  
  A = (GM)/R^2
  
  Eh, the formatting makes this almost impossible to do in text format. Here's a site that goes through the process and gives all proper formatting.
  
  http://easycalculation.com/physics/clas … ration.php
  
  The vector for gravitational acceleration is a line directly from the 'center of mass' of one object to the 'center of mass' of the other object. In scenarios where you hold something up and let go, the direction of acceleration is 'down' for the rock and 'up' for the earth.
  
  The direction of acceleration explains why the rock falls down, as compared to up.
  
  (cont'd)
  reply report
3. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You teach adults? In English? I'm sorry, but your English and grammar are sub-par for teaching.
  
  No, by definition, proof isn't subjective. If it isn't enough evidence to be proof, then it's still just evidence. Once it is enough, it's proof.
  
  If there is a murder trial and they find a bloody glove, that might not be enough evidence to be proof. If there are 500 eye-witnesses, 40 clear video-recordings of the event from different sources, and 20 samples of DNA evidence, it is proof.
  
  If you want to play the 'proof is subjective' game, the you are getting into philosophy, not science. We have guidelines for establishing sufficient evidence.
  
  But you can't define any words without using other words. Every word is defined with other words, and all definitions are circular to one degree or another. That's the point you don't get.
  
  Actually, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what gravity is. You can't refute our understanding of gravity without providing your own. So far, you haven't.
  
  You are trying to say I'm arguing your point, but sometimes, you are actually arguing mine. We consider 1000 consistent experiments that are based on a hypothesis that predicts the experiments precisely as proof.
  
  Yes, but nothing that you see, hear, feel, or experiences *isn't* processed in your brain. I'm explaining how your arguments verge into the philosophical. You can't PROVE that the sun exists. We could all be imagining it, or we could be part of a dream.
  
  Those arguments don't belong in science.
  
  No experimentation in science?!?!
  
  I still don't know if you and fatfist/infinity/someone else are really the same person, but that is an astonishing statement.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
  http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-f … thod.shtml
  http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_la … ndixe.html
  http://www.biology4kids.com/files/studi … ethod.html
  http://sciencefairproject.virtualave.ne … method.htm
  http://www.brainpop.com/science/scienti … eview.weml
  
  Seriously, go learn about science and the scientific method before you start talking about it any more.
  
  By your definition, space doesn't exist, but you include it in the definition of universe anyway. I just used YOUR definition. The procession of the matter in the universe changes the 'contour' of the space. I'm just using your 'space is but doesn't exist' model to try and help you understand.
  
  It has nothing to do with thought. An observer can be a person or an instrument. The fact is, two observers measure time as progressing the same, but when they meet, they have different measurements.
  
  1 - Your grammar makes it difficult to understand what you are saying.
  
  2 - My statement has been verified with experimentation. Light is not affected by the speed of the source.
  
  3 - Speed does affect sound. See the Doppler Effect.
  
  Yes, verified. I've pointed you to experiments before, but you brushed them off.
  
  It's just a few lines because it is a representation.
  
  I don't even know what you are saying... 'say paddy field(or America)'?
  
  'a small area you marked/ or drawn', that doesn't really make sense either. You are saying 'a small area you marked' or 'a small area you drawn'. It should be 'a small area you drew'. If you want to get so nitpicky about words, then lrn2grammar.
  
  I'm sorry, your entire argument made zero sense to me. Try reconstructing it in a grammatically correct manner, and try again.
  
  I don't know why light travels the way it does.
  
  Radiation. Radiation comes from a source... in the case of light from the sun it is high-velocity collisions of particles.
  
  They are a representation, you still don't understand that.
  
  I've explained and described time to you very clearly.
  reply report
0
jomineposted 12 years ago
Seriously, get a CT brain done and see whether your brain is still there.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A CT brain? Did you mean a CT scan of my brain?
  
  Exactly my point.
  
  Now that you have brought the entire conversation down to insult, can I assume you have nothing more to add?
  reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 12 years ago
What, is the air-speed velocity of an un-laden Swallow?
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What do you mean? African, or European?
  
  Be careful what you call a 'thing' around here... it upsets people.
  reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 12 years ago
Just joking ...
You guys have the floor ...
I'm just happy to read away and learn different concepts (which I consider a THING! - lol.)
reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 12 years ago
BTW, emrldphx, I continue to be impressed by your debating style and ability to explain things pretty well; kudos, and keep it up!
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you Timothy, I appreciate it.
  reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 12 years ago
Yes, like a "book" is a thing, with dimensions and all, but it's "message" is not??? Or, a computer program, or a thought, or a concept, etc.
Science, in my understanding has also proven that when a person "thinks", there is "stuff" happening in his brain ... some "thing" is making it "churn", and cavivitation cannot destroy a pump, because that is a concept, not a thing (well then, what is it that destroys the pump - a "difference" in pressure? I thought a "difference" is not a "thing" either.
reply report
1. 60
  emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think my favorite would have to be gravity. I've heard two explanations for how gravity is a 'thing'. One, is that there are these subatomic particles, which we can't detect in any way, that bombard us from every direction, and move us. So, when you jump, the particles bombarding you from space push you back down. The earth blocks these particles, which is why you don't get pushed up.
  
  Of course, this completely ignores the fact that more density = more gravity, but that's just a minor detail.
  
  The other explanation is that everything is connected with strings that are too small to see. And, the strings are elastic, so they pull you back to earth.
  reply report
60
Timothy Donnellyposted 12 years ago
All right, so maybe the cavitation thing is not a good example.
Let me change the subject just a bit by saying that some things are “counter-intuitive” (or, behave counter-intuitively); they may suggest a certain implication or direction of subsequent course, but actually proceed in a different manner than what the indicative proportions seemingly suggest. One example I can think of is that studies have shown that a lower-calibre gun shot (bullet) will actually travel farther in water. The higher-calibre shot might seem to be the one to naturally be able to go farther but, because of its velocity and the surface tension of the water, it actually breaks up into fragments and loses its energy (and velocity). Counter-intuitive, but true. Sorry to go off topic, emrldphx, but in order to keep an open mind, sometimes a bit of lateral-thinking can help me relate to things I don’t grasp immediately - sort of like taking a step back or to the side in order to allow myself another perspective, and more time to breath.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Examining A Claim of the Impossibility of Creationism

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Examining A Claim of the Impossibility of Creationism

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies