The Evangelical "War" on Science

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKDKq_PPbk



Those people scare me to no-end. Did you see how brainwashed those kids were? Evangelicalism and its followers are incredibly dangerous. They even have gone so far (as you saw in the YouTube video) to publish books to train evangelical followers how to counter people who believe in Darwin's scientific statement on evolution.

What freaks me out most is how 54 million people over 18 don't believe in it because of people like the older gentleman at the beginning who published the book "Answers in Genesis".


Discuss.

[XabbaRus]

Got to agree with you. I love the great catch all "the bible says". I'm not religious but not bigoted either. Hell Darwin was a christian and believed in God he didn't find any incompatibility.

[Stealth Hunter]

"If the Bible says it, it must be right!"

But the Bible was written by man, not by God.

So man holds the keys to the secrets of the universe? According to them, I'm right with that statement.:rotfl:

What idiots people can be.

[Letum]

I think the war on science is justifyed if they can prove that science has WMDs.

[Mush Martin]

There is no thing so common to us all as the human propensity
for self deception.
M

[XabbaRus]

I was reading about the Tower of Babel and how when God saw what people could achieve when they worked together gave them different languages and scattered them around the globe, looks like on jealous god and thus all his fault why we can't get on.

[nikimcbee]

I think the war on science is justifyed if they can prove that science has WMDs.
:rotfl: So that's where they went! I just don't understand why one would look for "scientific knowledge" in the Bible? It was never intended to be a science book.

[Letum]

I was reading about the Tower of Babel and how when God saw what people could achieve when they worked together gave them different languages and scattered them around the globe, looks like on jealous god and thus all his fault why we can't get on.

Ironic that Babel, the symbol of human unity, saw so much fighting over the past years
since the invasion.

Then again, if we did build a tower of Babel; i.e. a building/device to physicaly reach
god, then I suspect someone would try to trap God and use him as a tourist attraction
or some other way to make a profit. Perhaps he was just erring on the side of caution.

[Letum]

I just don't understand why one would look for "scientific knowledge" in the Bible? It was never intended to be a science book.

:hmm: Yes it was.
At least it was intended to be the closest thing to science that people had at the time.

[nikimcbee]

I just don't understand why one would look for "scientific knowledge" in the Bible? It was never intended to be a science book.

:hmm: Yes it was.
At least it was intended to be the closest thing to science that people had at the time.


...at the time.:|\\ It's amazing they even got past the round vs flat argument.

[Foxtrot]

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!

Now you guys should wait for a fire from skies. You all will be like a well done meat stake

:D

[nikimcbee]

Blasphemy! Blasphemy! Blasphemy!

Now you guys should wait for a fire from skies. You all will be like a well done meat stake

:D

I just said this halibut was good enough for.....
oh nevermind:rotfl:

[antikristuseke]

These kinds of fundamentalists anger me. They lie purpousfully and are nothing but hypocrites who make money off people who have not had proper science education. Taking any religious book literaly, concidering when it was written, causes endless problems in all walks of life.
I mean just look at what those people come out with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504
And the legendary banana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

[Skybird]

A board member linked me to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKvOyyqKaZ0&feature=related

Funny, and yet - so very damn true!

[Chock]

Well that does it for me, if I didn't have enough reason to dislike organised religion before, claiming that Dinosaurs (presumably including Barney) are created by God, is now swinging it for me.

:D Chock

[nikimcbee]

Well that does it for me, if I didn't have enough reason to dislike organised religion before, claiming that Dinosaurs (presumably including Barney) are created by God, is now swinging it for me.

:D Chock

Chock, what are we going to do with you?:hmm: There is no such thing as a "dinosaur" since it was not mentioned in the Bible. You are spreading heresy and must be burned at the stake.....or....the comfy chair:hmm: :hmm: Yes, the comfy chair! Cardinal Biggles! Fetch the comfy chair!

[nikimcbee]

Well that does it for me, if I didn't have enough reason to dislike organised religion before, claiming that Dinosaurs (presumably including Barney) are created by God, is now swinging it for me.

:D Chock


And yes, Barney is real!:yep:

[TteFAboB]

He's not only real, but he's most obviously the work of the devil.

[nikimcbee]

He's not only real, but he's most obviously the work of the devil.

HE IS PURPLE! By george you're right!

[SUBMAN1]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S

[Skybird]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S
Hm...?

[SUBMAN1]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S Hm...?The point I'm making is their pea brains can't fathom the idea that god is pure energy (You know this since it would have killed Moses to see his face - the radiation would have killed him instantly), putting him into the 4th and 5th dimensions easily - ie. outside of time, and at multiple points in space/time at the same time. So the Evangelicals read in a day he created the Heavens and Earth in the bible and they take that litterally. Well, maybe if you were standing with God during his creation, you would have had a single days time pass. However, if you were standing upon the Earth, you'd be an old man, billions of years old during its creation. Time is easily changed for god, since you will find passages of how vast distances in space are traveled by simply stepping over a line in a moment in time. How can this be? A manipulation of gravity obviously, Ripping space time with it and pulling the place in the Universe to you, instead of you travelling to it. The Ligo project is already showing how gravity warps time and space, so you already know how this happens. Funny how they already talk about it in an ancient book when the idea is modern.

Other things I question - Angels probably don't have wings. How can an ancient person describe disappearing in an energy source (ie transported)? How can they describe the ability to fly? All they know are simple things - wings.

I can go on all day and put things into a technological and science perspective, but I have to say BOTH science / Darwin, and the Evangelicals are right, just that either side is not opening up their minds to see both sides of the picture.

My guess is that god says he owns all things, so if you look at string theory and understand that all that is solid is not. It is simply energy, I'd say that he is all the energy in the Universe and beyond, so he owns/is your matter too.

-S

[Letum]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S Hm...?The point I'm making is their pea brains can't fathom the idea that god is pure energy (You know this since it would have killed Moses to see his face - the radiation would have killed him instantly), putting him into the 4th and 5th dimensions easily - ie. outside of time, and at multiple points in space/time at the same time. So the Evangelicals read in a day he created the Heavens and Earth in the bible and they take that litterally. Well, maybe if you were standing with God during his creation, you would have had a single days time pass. However, if you were standing upon the Earth, you'd be an old man, billions of years old during its creation. Time is easily changed for god, since you will find passages of how vast distances in space are traveled by simply stepping over a line in a moment in time. How can this be? A manipulation of gravity obviously, Ripping space time with it and pulling the place in the Universe to you, instead of you travelling to it. The Ligo project is already showing how gravity warps time and space, so you already know how this happens. Funny how they already talk about it in an ancient book when the idea is modern.

Other things I question - Angels probably don't have wings. How can an ancient person describe disappearing in an energy source (ie transported)? How can they describe the ability to fly? All they know are simple things - wings.

I can go on all day and put things into a technological and science perspective, but I have to say BOTH science / Darwin, and the Evangelicals are right, just that either side is not opening up their minds to see both sides of the picture.

My guess is that god says he owns all things, so if you look at string theory and understand that all that is solid is not. It is simply energy, I'd say that he is all the energy in the Universe and beyond, so he owns/is your matter too.

-S


:o Only one thing to do with a quote like that...

/submits (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx)

[Skybird]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S Hm...?The point I'm making is their pea brains can't fathom the idea that god is pure energy (You know this since it would have killed Moses to see his face - the radiation would have killed him instantly), putting him into the 4th and 5th dimensions easily - ie. outside of time, and at multiple points in space/time at the same time. So the Evangelicals read in a day he created the Heavens and Earth in the bible and they take that litterally. Well, maybe if you were standing with God during his creation, you would have had a single days time pass. However, if you were standing upon the Earth, you'd be an old man, billions of years old during its creation. Time is easily changed for god, since you will find passages of how vast distances in space are traveled by simply stepping over a line in a moment in time. How can this be? A manipulation of gravity obviously, Ripping space time with it and pulling the place in the Universe to you, instead of you travelling to it. The Ligo project is already showing how gravity warps time and space, so you already know how this happens. Funny how they already talk about it in an ancient book when the idea is modern.

Other things I question - Angels probably don't have wings. How can an ancient person describe disappearing in an energy source (ie transported)? How can they describe the ability to fly? All they know are simple things - wings.

I can go on all day and put things into a technological and science perspective, but I have to say BOTH science / Darwin, and the Evangelicals are right, just that either side is not opening up their minds to see both sides of the picture.

My guess is that god says he owns all things, so if you look at string theory and understand that all that is solid is not. It is simply energy, I'd say that he is all the energy in the Universe and beyond, so he owns/is your matter too.

-S
I pass. Too much mixing, for my taste. In all what you juist said, there is no need at all to still think in terms of a deity somewhere out there, or in matter, or in time.

[VipertheSniper]

The funny thing is between Darwin and the Evangelicals - they are both right.

-S Hm...?The point I'm making is their pea brains can't fathom the idea that god is pure energy (You know this since it would have killed Moses to see his face - the radiation would have killed him instantly), putting him into the 4th and 5th dimensions easily - ie. outside of time, and at multiple points in space/time at the same time. So the Evangelicals read in a day he created the Heavens and Earth in the bible and they take that litterally. Well, maybe if you were standing with God during his creation, you would have had a single days time pass. However, if you were standing upon the Earth, you'd be an old man, billions of years old during its creation. Time is easily changed for god, since you will find passages of how vast distances in space are traveled by simply stepping over a line in a moment in time. How can this be? A manipulation of gravity obviously, Ripping space time with it and pulling the place in the Universe to you, instead of you travelling to it. The Ligo project is already showing how gravity warps time and space, so you already know how this happens. Funny how they already talk about it in an ancient book when the idea is modern.

Other things I question - Angels probably don't have wings. How can an ancient person describe disappearing in an energy source (ie transported)? How can they describe the ability to fly? All they know are simple things - wings.

I can go on all day and put things into a technological and science perspective, but I have to say BOTH science / Darwin, and the Evangelicals are right, just that either side is not opening up their minds to see both sides of the picture.

My guess is that god says he owns all things, so if you look at string theory and understand that all that is solid is not. It is simply energy, I'd say that he is all the energy in the Universe and beyond, so he owns/is your matter too.

-S


:o Only one thing to do with a quote like that...

/submits (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx)

I don't know, I think it's not hairraising enough... :lol:

[SUBMAN1]

Just trying to look at it from a logical perspective based on the science we know. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? This stuff just magically appear for no reason? Not sure how that could happen. Just some things in this Universe don't make sense without the existence of a creator. The Big Bang being one of them.

I've looked at both sides. Went away from god (yes, you might have considered me an atheist at the time) when I was in my teens and early 20's, but the more I understand science, the more I can't see any other way this could happen, our being could happen, our Universe existing without a creator. I can't explain it any other way.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

:o Only one thing to do with a quote like that...

/submits (http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx)Yeah - why don't you post it? Some of the more intellectual there may understand what I am talking about. Most people don't get dimensional time space theory, but some of the smarter people do.

To help you on your quest to understand, here is something to educate you on String Theory: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

One of the things you will learn in there is that solid matter is not solid at all. Everything, all matter around you is nothing more than pure energy. Trust me though, prepare to be a bit shocked. :D

-S

[Skybird]

Just trying to look at it from a logical perspective based on the science we know. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? This stuff just magically appear for no reason? Not sure how that could happen. Just some things in this Universe don't make sense without the existence of a creator. The Big Bang being one of them.

I've looked at both sides. Went away from god (yes, you might have considered me an atheist at the time) when I was in my teens and early 20's, but the more I understand science, the more I can't see any other way this could happen, our being could happen, our Universe existing without a creator. I can't explain it any other way.

-SBig Bang? Who says it has been like that? In past years, some people defending religions pointed finger at me and complained that I were saying that Darwin is the ultimate truth. I never indicated that belief, though. It's a theory - but in my eyes the currently best theory we have, making much more sense than any other. Big Bang also is a theory, born by a thinking that assumes that there must be a beginning and an end, and between the two time is "moving" from the first to the latter. But there are other models and thoughts, that simply do not include any beginning or ending, but saying that "it" simply is, never being born, never dying. I personally think that big Bang somehow is even a somewhat stupid, infantile theory, which says more about our disrupted way of thinking and making models of the world and our place in it, than saying something about reality. You see, I have seen some strange things and made some strange experiences that made me thinking that our concept of time if flawed, and that there is no beginning and no ending like big Bang and entropic heat-death of the universe. This theory only reaches as far as our current scientific knowledge allows us to go. I am also 100% sure that neither intellect nor ego alone can explain the universe, as you put it. That is like something limited trying to embrace the unlimited, so to speak. If you want to understand the universe, turn to your inner self. All the space up there - is your true inner space, just that. In the end, all life as well as astronomical reasearch is just the mind's dance with itself.

So, that is the essence of my conclusions, there is only your mind experiencing yourself, and all things you consider to be there - time, matter, God, sense and meaning - are only misled interpretations. But things are like they are, and what they are, your interpretation orginally is not needed., nor is your emotional reaction. While what is will set you free, and lead you beyond all boundaries of your intellectual or religious imagining. If you want to see the truth, loose your self and come to your unconditional awareness. Self-realization is only possible at the cost of self-transcendence: the more you want to see the true reality there is, the more you need to be unaware of yourself. that is the meaning behind the story of Jesus chasing the traders out of the temple. the more "yourself" there is, the less awareness of reality there is. total awareness of reality means: total absence of your "self".

When googling for the english translation of a Zen one-liner I wanted to give you, to my surprise I stumbled over a name I know - my second teacher and mentor, Wolfgang Kopp. He got quoted from a collection of transcripted speeches some students of him have collected and published in book form. Please note that the text is not to missionise concerning any ideology, nor is it arguing in favour or against any religion, it also does not tell anyone just to believe this or that, but leaves it up to you wether to analysize it by self-experience, or not. So take it for itself, not more, not less. From the following link, the first two texts, "Mysterious peaceful joy", and "The cheerfulness of the soul":
http://peterspearls.com.au/joy.htm
(bold printing and markings by the website's creator, not by Zensho).

You will note that by context, content and direction, it is right the same what I am occassionaly trying to point at, too. Also note that Zensho is a fully "ordinated" Zen Master and dharma-follower of Soji Enku Roshi, but nevertheless - like me - is not shy to refer to the Christian gospels and christian mystics, and Jesus. I already was like that when I first met him. He deepened my understanding of christian mystic, though.

Zensho and me always differed on the role of Paul, though. :lol:

One of my most favourite sayings:
Mind is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms. Free yourself from everything! - Huang Po. (my translation from German.)

That includes Darwin, Big Bang and evangelical confusion as well. Move beyond these dualistic arguments!

[SUBMAN1]

Big Bang? Who says it has been like that? In past years, some people defending religons pointed finger at me and complained i were saying that Darwin is the ultimate truth. I never indicated that belief, though. It's a theory - but in my eyes the currently best theory we have, making much more sense than any other. Big Bang also is a theory, born by a thinking that ssumes that there must be a beginning and an end, and between the two time is "moving" from the first to the latter. But there are other models and thoughts, that simply do not inlcude any beginning or ending, but saying that "it" simply is, never being born, never dying. I personally thino that big Bang somehow is even a somewhat stupid theory, which says more about our disrupted way of thinking and malking models of the world and our place in it, than saying something about reality. You see, I have seen some strnage things and made some strange experiences that made me assume that our concept of time if flawed, and that there is no beginning and no ending like big Bang and entropic heat-death of the universe. This theory only reaches as far as our current scientific knowledge allows us to go. I also am 100% sure that neither intellect nor ego alone cannot explain the universe, as you put it. That is like something limited trying to embrace the unlimited, so to speak.

In the end, there is only your mind experiencing yourself, and all things you consider to be there, time, matter, God, sense and meaning, are only interpretations. While what is will set you free, and lead you beyond all boundaries of your intellectual or religious imagining. If you want to see the truth, loose your self and come to your unconditional awareness. self-realization is only possible at the cost of self-transcendence: the more you want to see the true reality there is, the more you need to be unaware of yourself.

When googling for the english translation of a Zen one-liner I wanted to give you, to my surprise I stumbled over a name I know - my second teacher and mentor, Wolfgang Kopp. He got quoted from a collection of transcripted speeches some students of him have collected and pusblished in book form. Please note that the text is not to missionise concerning any ideology, nor is it arguing in favour or against any religion, it also does not tell anyone just to believe this or that, but leaves it up to you wether to analysize it by self-experience, or not. So take it for itself, not more, not less. From the following link, the first two texts, "Mysterious peaceful joy", and "The cheerfulness of the soul":
http://peterspearls.com.au/joy.htm
(bold printing and markings by the website's creator, not by Zensho).

You will note that by context, content and direction, it is right the same what I am occassionaly try to point at, too. Also note that Zensho is a fully "ordinated" Zen Master and dharma-follower of Soji Enku Roshi, but nevertheless -like me - is not shy to refer to the Christian gospels and christian mystics. I already was like that when I first met him.

Zensho and me always differed on the role of Paul, though. :lol:

One of my most favourite sayings:
Mind is of shining clarity, so throw away the darkness of all your terms. Free yourself from everything! - Huang Po. (my translation from German.)

That includes Darwin, Big Bang and evangelical confusion as well. Move beyond these dualistic arguments.SHould I throw away the idea that up is up and down is down? :D Just messing with you on that one. I hear you though. Life is about trying ot explain ones world and existence. Like you, I believe in Darwin, but unlike you, I pretty much believe in Darwin absolute. There is no other explanation. Darwin is right. But, as you can see (I assume you are the same), I don't take what it is I beleive without question. Someone tells me something is this, well, for me I like to know how it is 'this'. I always need to understand, not simply accept.

-S

[Skybird]

But Darwins theory already has seen corrections, and changes in some formerly popular content. It is a theory, thta means: it is meaning and interpretation added to observation. and being a theory that it is, it is object to chnages and alternations when our knowledge has widened a bit to make that step necessary. It is not different to the thoery of einstein. Quantum physics. Medical paradigms. None of that is neither an observed total reality, nor the ultimate interpretation. in the end, science compares to the chess player in Hesse's "Der Steppenwolf". Like that player philosophizes about being able to built infinite chess realities (positions) by just combining the same pieces in different ways, science takes subjective moments of obsrvation and perception, and set them into artifical relations and orders, like a collector is putting miniatures into a case, according to the order he has decided on all by himself. This does not mean it is a useless effort, in fact it makes sense to him - his sense. So the way we arrange science is useful for us: it enables us to fly in the air and close space, it enables us to dive deep into the ocean and find medication for deseases - but it also makes us thinking in certain ways, infleuncing our lives in a given way, and putting our golobal existence at risk in a certain manner. It is just one amongst myriads of chess positions, and it is us deciding where we set the pieces to create an interesting position. that is what in Hesse's book is called "Aufbau-kunst". All science is Aufbaukunst - and thus, highly arbitraily, non-objective. It cannot be objective, never, as long as there is soemthing making use of it, and being the subject in the event of obsrving an object. Only the fall of the difference between subject and object allows for "total percpetion". And that means: becoming the process of what is happening yourself. And that means: truth, ultimate reality, God's face - you name it.

When Christian mystics say "Die before you have to die, then live your life - all is good", they are pretty damn serious about it! ;) It means "kill your self, kill your beliefs, kill your illusions of an ego, kill all your terms and conceptions, kill God, kill buddha if you meet him - and finally see that there never was anything you needed to kill and that got killed, for it never was real and never was there anyway. at that point, you will gain ultimate freedom, no matter what your life is, and you will not been born and you cannot die. That is what "free mind" really is. It is not the gaining of something, it is the absence of something: illusions, the veil of maya covering the reality from your eyes, the ego, the dualistic polarisation creating your understanding of what world is, or better: get's constructed by.

It is - not more, not less, for nothing is needed, and nothing is left uncomplete.

[SUBMAN1]

Your Christian mythics thing makes no sense. I've never heard a Christian, not even fanatical ones state what you just stated.

On Theories - they are never perfect, but the base idea is what is important. How it actually happneed may always be left up to some of this happened a little more than that. The underlying base of the theory remains the same.

And by the way, I am not going to discount the greatest minds on Earth just to support your theory that this didn't happen. We know the Big Bang happened. We just don't know all the details, and some Martial Artist idea to remove the idea of everything we know doesn't cut it )maybe for simple minds this helps)! Let's put it this way - the people that created these theories are a hell of a lot smarter than you or I, and on top of it, I can study how they came to their conclusions and figure out why the theories are sound.

The idea to throw all these theories out the door on your whim and quest to discount god is far more mystic and radical idea than any radical christian idea I have ever heard! :D :rotfl::up:

-S

PS. I'm bored with this topic now.

[Deamon]

Jesus would fall from the sky when he would see this. Such people need to be locked away.

Here is an interesting vlog that is dead on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=707NU1zfv4Q&feature=related

[Skybird]

Your Christian mythics thing makes no sense. I've never heard a Christian, not even fanatical ones state what you just stated.
That may have something to do with that Christian fundamentalists and "churchists", or fanatical Christians like you mentioned, do not have anything to do with the lectures of Christ at all. BTW, "fanatical christians" are a contradiction in themselves, and are not any christian at all. Jesus never has taughed something that would justify to be a "fanatical christian".

On Theories - they are never perfect, but the base idea is what is important. How it actually happneed may always be left up to some of this happened a little more than that. The underlying base of the theory remains the same.
How do you know that? A theory never is more than just expression of the knowledge that at a given time is a.) available and b.) by dogmatic establishement has been accepted to be the valid paradigm for the time being. It never is more. Paradigms chnage. ALL paradigms chnage, some sooner, others later. If you think there is always and necessarily a grain of truth remaining in every theory, then I wonder why you do not fall off the edge of the earth if you are sailing too far out on that ocean.

And by the way, I am not going to discount the greatest minds on Earth just to support your theory that this didn't happen.
And what theory you claim I have, what exactly is it? I cannot reme,ber to have mentioned a theory of mine. I just said that the big Bang is one theory. I could also say that it is relatively new and unproven. If you consider that theory to be fact, then you are already just believing again. Ken wilber in "Eros, Kosmos, Logos" for example offers another, very reasonably convicning to arrange latest insights from science to explain why world is there, and does not need big Bang for it. It is not so much a theory of him, but a model. A model that 20 years earlier was much easier in complexity, and meanwhile has been slightly changed by him again. And if I ask you if there was a Big Bang, then what was before Big Bang, and why was Big Bang instead of "nothingness", and you would answer that is the reason why you do believe there is a god (that you use as a joker for your lacking knowledge), then you are only believing again. You try something impossible here: to bring the effort of being reasonable, which ideally is the essence and motivation of empirical science (the only concept of science the West is accepting: empirical science) and immediate experience, in partnership with religously motivated "just believing". and that does not work.

And in how far is it discounting the mind of a scientist if he is shown that his methodology maybe if flawed, or that there is alternative explanation, or other options, or falsifying of his theories? You should not coclcude from you on others. Falsifying, prooving better, trial and error - this is elemental key components of scietific processes, and it is happening all the time. Where you insist on turning theories into valid dogmas, you freeze science, and turn it into a religion itself. Which is great for believers, maybe, and dogmatists and career-freaks who hate changes - but not for scientists.


We know the Big Bang happened.
Now you sound like somebody saying that Dinosaurs lived just six thousand years ago, and that we know it, and that it was somebody's intention to let them appear to have lived longer time ago, which not only makes no sense and let's that somebody appear like a mad man, but also is not proven in any way, but only believed. No we don't know that the big Bang has been a reality, and there also is no solid evidence for it - just observations, background radiations for example, that seem to be a clue - the problem is that our knoweldge about these clues again is only very limited, and we are far from fully understanding the full nature of these phenomenons, and others as well. the more we learn, the more we see how little we know. Big Bang is a conception that currently is the best way in which some scientific observations we make, as well as other theories (sorry, more of them), seem to work more smoothly together than in any other way of arranging them. Proof and evidence there is none. we take it serious, because a.) it supports theistic claims that there have to be a creator and this idea has influenced and formed the Western thinking since centuries, and b.) we have no promising scientific alternative theory. This can change anytime, or in a hundred years, like the theory of earth being a flat disc, or all stars and the sun revolving around our planet, were taken very seriously and argued in favour for by famous men of their times - until other observations were made, and more knowledge was available, and smarter minds produced more educated ideas.

We just don't know all the details, and some Martial Artist idea to remove the idea of everything we know doesn't cut it ) maybe for simple minds this helps)!
Simple-mindedness is with those who are satisfied with just believing something, including believing to know where they believe only indeed. And neither Zen nor Christian mysticism has ever been some "martial artist idea" to remove the idea of everything. You just do not know about it, and that is why you play it down instead of wondering if maybe some people from these traditions maybe know more than you believe you know. I do not expect to interest you for Zen, but maybe you will read a bit of Meister Eckehard, then? It is a bit difficult to disrespect him as just one random figure, you know. He has been one of the most influental persons of his time, and the most important name of this tradition. Needless to say - no, he does not represent traditional church dogma, nor traditional superstitious belief in magic, miracle and wonder.

Let's put it this way - the people that created these theories are a hell of a lot smarter than you or I, and on top of it, I can study how they came to their conclusions and figure out why the theories are sound.

And none of them probably ever disputed that a theory is only a theory, and never is written for standing until the end of time. Also, you seem to forget Heisenberg' uncertainty principle, which sets limits to our chances to ever witness reality that is not already object to our alteration of it by the mere act of observing it. We cannot witness "objective reality" as long as we subject and what we see is object. Or see the idea or radical constructivism that I have repeatedly mentioned over time - counter it, if you can. and finally, proove me that the things you see as reality, are really there and appear in the way your senses tell you they look and feel like. I say it all is just ideas and images in your brain, electric potentials running down the neurons of your nervous system, neurotransmitters passing through synaptic slots, dynamic, self-supporting biochemical dysbalances. The matter you consists of, is irreal. An atom consists of empty space. It'S sub particles are probability clouds of tendencies to exist or not to exist for ridiculously short ammounts of time, and sometimes even bckwards in time. Now make sense of that, if you can, and tell me the world is solid matter and is like it looks like. For a bat, it alreads is something totally different, or a whale diving in total darkness, but still having precise concepts of the world surrounding him. A snail lives in a different time dimension, than you do. Other species uncover aspects and faces of "reality", that we even cannot imagine to exist with our senses.

that your ears and eyes, your nose and tongue and skin send signals to the brain which get arranged in a developed neural manner and order, does not give any evidence at all that the world "outside" is what you think it is. You are dealing with your own totally subjective interpretations only. they only give evidence that they are functioning like they are designed to do. Not more.

The idea to throw all these theories out the door on your whim and quest to discount god is far more mystic and radical idea than any radical christian idea I have ever heard! :D :rotfl::up:

Whom do you mean? You are no careful reader, aren't you. nowehere I said to kick all theories out of the window in a rush. I said that a theory is not more than just a theory, and that over time almost all theories see correction, replacement, alteration, and ideally they represent the best order in whcih we can make the best sense of the world as far as we have uncovered it's inner nature and phenomenological structure. You mismatch theory with ultimate reality, and you must exaggerate what I said to give the impression to others you had any substantial or valid idea or argument to play it all down. You even do not know how to differantiate "radical christianity" and mystic, judging by the wording in this paragraph of yours.

Like in that last thread where you played the spiritual leader and I nailed you down to what is really was: lacking knowledge and experience, here you again have no solid knowledge or evidence for your claims you offer, only your own confusion.

I'm bored with this topic now.
That is not true, a bored mind does not invest so much time to write your answer. You simply do not have something substantial to say to discredit what I say by argument, without distorting me, and without exaggerate interpretations of what I say.

If you want to gain knowledge and experience, beliefs and dogmas and hear-say and theories are not helpful, and they will always hinder you to become a spiritual helpful person that you advertised yourself to be some days ago. Nothing of these fantasies frees you from the need to make one single, essential, most elemental admitting statement to yourself at the very beginning, and that is:

I.... D O N ' T.... K N O W.

Another recommendation for reading is this:
http://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Freedom-Change-Nyingma-Psychology/dp/091354695X/ref=sr_1_5/104-6983225-5982312?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197762595&sr=8-5
I used it as an inspiration myself to work with people, maybe a little bit like Zen masters use Koans, and it ended often with people being left with just two or three sentences all week long. Do not be mistaken by the title "Knowledge of Freedom", the book does not give you answers, but is filled from the first to the last chapter with just obvious observations that are so basic that nobody can deny them, really, and lots of questions only. You do not learn knowledge, but you learn to ask the questions, which is far more efficient, and valuable a way to learn. As two reader comments reviewed the book: "I especially recommend this resource for persons interested in learning more about their internal mechanisms or patterns of conditioning. This book has helped me learn what Freedom is really about in contrast to our president and others who base their understanding of freedom on religious beliefs, insecurities and prejudices." And: "The author uses stimulating questions to guide one's inquiry into the way one participates in life and thereby contributes to the world. For example, "How much of our lives is patterned upon assumptions we never learned to question? How strong is our motivation to discover the knowledge we would need to give greater meaning to our lives?" As I read the book, I challenged my habitual patterning and came to new ways of knowing and being in the world. To activate the power of this book, one must read in a different kind of way. This book is for reflecting, challenging, and questioning; not for merely skimming and accepting. " - I read and was told that it was popular at colleges and universities throughout the US.


If you want to build a ship,
don't drum up people together to collect wood
and don't assign them tasks and work,
but rather teach them to long
for the endless immensity of the sea.

[Stealth Hunter]

". . . how come's we can't find the word 'dinosaur' in the Bible?" -Guy talking about the behemoth and Job


Ummmm... because it was invented 1500 years after the Bible was written........ ?


EDIT:

The best part about that guy was how he never mentioned that the Bible says that the behemoth had a navel. Reptiles do not have navels, only mammals do.

[DeepIron]

"God uses the simple to confound the wise." Looks like it's working... :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

"God uses the simple to confound the wise." Looks like it's working... :lol:

Otherway 'round, mate.

These people are smart. Hell, ever turned the TV to TBN to watch "Praise the Lord"? During Christmas, they'll show off their mansions and huge trees and dozens of cars. Wait- if this is the Lord's bidding, why not share some of that with us? Why can't I live in your mansion and drive your car? Why aren't you donating millions of dollars of your money to starving people in Africa? Hmm? Care to answer?

[Blacklight]

Just some things in this Universe don't make sense without the existence of a creator. The Big Bang being one of them.



Actually, there have been experiments done where particles jumped out of a vaccume therefore proving that something can come from nothing. Our universe is just wierd. I don't see any "God" in it. I feel that a "God" or a "Sentient Creator" is WAY to humanising the universe. Obviously something happened to create the universe.. or it sprang from nothing.. who knows.. but I don't believe it's some sentient being who decided "Hmmm.. I think I'll make a universe today".
I respect the opinions of the people who believe that "God created everything" and I still find room for God in science... but the guy in the video there is just preaching complete and total ignorance.
Religion has been fighting against science ever since the dawn of time and I don't see the struggle ending any time soon.
The real issue is... The universe is Complicated. We don't understand all of it. We can understand a good deal of it with really REALLY complicated maths that the average person will never comprehend without YEARS of study. Therefore, for a good protion of those people who don't understand at all the maths, the science, and the significance of experimental discoveries(and even those results are way too complicated to understand without YEARS of study and understandings of multiple maths, physics, and chemistry), God is the only answer and they close their minds to anything else. It's a case of "Here's the explanation" and "I don't understand the explanation.. you're talking over my head. A supernatural entity must be responsible since I just don't get the complicated stuff."

Sorry about the rant. I'm a theoretical physics nerd :88)

[joea]

In defence of Subman, many Christian writers, like St. Basil, spoke of the days in the bible being like thousands of years for man.

[Torplexed]

In defence of Subman, many Christian writers, like St. Basil, spoke of the days in the bible being like thousands of years for man.
I'm afraid the musings of a saint living hundreds of years after the death of Christ doesn't much interest bible literalists...like the founders of the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. The earth is 6,000 years old and was created in one week and that's that.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

Ken Ham has spent 11 years working on a museum that poses the big question: When and how did life begin? Ham hopes to soon offer an answer to that question with his Creation Museum in northern Kentucky.The $25 million monument to creationism offers Ham's view that God created the world in six, 24-hour days on a planet just 6,000 years old. The largest museum of its kind in the world, it hopes to draw 600,000 people from the Midwest and beyond in its first year.

[joea]

I'm afraid the musings of a saint living hundreds of years after the death of Christ doesn't much interest bible literalists...like the founders of the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky. The earth is 6,000 years old and was created in one week and that's that.



Except I believe that is actually in the bible somewhere, in the Psalms maybe?? :hmm:

[Iceman]

Just some things in this Universe don't make sense without the existence of a creator. The Big Bang being one of them.



Actually, there have been experiments done where particles jumped out of a vaccume therefore proving that something can come from nothing. Our universe is just wierd. I don't see any "God" in it. I feel that a "God" or a "Sentient Creator" is WAY to humanising the universe. Obviously something happened to create the universe.. or it sprang from nothing.. who knows.. but I don't believe it's some sentient being who decided "Hmmm.. I think I'll make a universe today".
I respect the opinions of the people who believe that "God created everything" and I still find room for God in science... but the guy in the video there is just preaching complete and total ignorance.
Religion has been fighting against science ever since the dawn of time and I don't see the struggle ending any time soon.
The real issue is... The universe is Complicated. We don't understand all of it. We can understand a good deal of it with really REALLY complicated maths that the average person will never comprehend without YEARS of study. Therefore, for a good protion of those people who don't understand at all the maths, the science, and the significance of experimental discoveries(and even those results are way too complicated to understand without YEARS of study and understandings of multiple maths, physics, and chemistry), God is the only answer and they close their minds to anything else. It's a case of "Here's the explanation" and "I don't understand the explanation.. you're talking over my head. A supernatural entity must be responsible since I just don't get the complicated stuff."

Sorry about the rant. I'm a theoretical physics nerd :88)

The other side of this coin is...

String theory...the "big Bangeroo"...Einstein's thory of "Everything....E=MC2....all mans attempt to understand things our pea brains grasp at yet the raw truth is not going to be that complex I would think....

I went thru this before with some of you...

1. A big bang = Genesis 1 [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

2. Age of the universe,The age of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe), in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), is the time elapsed between the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and the present day. Current observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_based_on_WMAP) suggest that this is about 13.7 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_%28number%29) years, with an uncertainty of about 200 million years.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#_note-NASA)"wiki"
=
6 days the heavens and earth were created the 7th day the Lord God rested....it is only mans assumptions a day to God is as a day to man....time to an Eternal being is not relevant Time is an equation unique to man and this current exsistence.

3.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png where

E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule))
m = the mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass) (in kilograms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram))
c = the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) in a vacuum (celeritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeritas)) (in meters per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second)). "Wiki"=

Luke 17
[6] And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Which also relates to Einsteins discovery of the faster the speed of light is approached time slows...the assumption is somehow made though that this speed cannot be attained by man....probably right...maybe why God as a spirit and Eternal and is Light time is not a boundry....hum...

science makes man seek which is good....seek an ye shall find.

you'll find God.

[Letum]

:dead: *Dies of pseudo science*

[DeepIron]

Otherway 'round, mate.

These people are smart. Hell, ever turned the TV to TBN to watch "Praise the Lord"? During Christmas, they'll show off their mansions and huge trees and dozens of cars. Wait- if this is the Lord's bidding, why not share some of that with us? Why can't I live in your mansion and drive your car? Why aren't you donating millions of dollars of your money to starving people in Africa? Hmm? Care to answer?
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25)."

Pretty simple... If one lives for acquiring and displaying mammon (the material things of the world) are they truly serving the Lord? Only the individual can answer to the Lord that which is in his/her heart.

The issue here isn't really one of what "they" have or do, it's about what *you* do. :hmm:

[VipertheSniper]

The other side of this coin is...

String theory...the "big Bangeroo"...Einstein's thory of "Everything....E=MC2....all mans attempt to understand things our pea brains grasp at yet the raw truth is not going to be that complex I would think....

I went thru this before with some of you...

1. A big bang = Genesis 1 [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

2. Age of the universe,The age of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe), in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), is the time elapsed between the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and the present day. Current observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_based_on_WMAP) suggest that this is about 13.7 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_%28number%29) years, with an uncertainty of about 200 million years.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#_note-NASA)"wiki"
=
6 days the heavens and earth were created the 7th day the Lord God rested....it is only mans assumptions a day to God is as a day to man....time to an Eternal being is not relevant Time is an equation unique to man and this current exsistence.


With this I can agree although it seems far fetched to me to deduce from that, that the universe was created by (our, or any) God.


3.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png where

E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule))
m = the mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass) (in kilograms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram))
c = the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) in a vacuum (celeritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeritas)) (in meters per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second)). "Wiki"=

Luke 17
[6] And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Which also relates to Einsteins discovery of the faster the speed of light is approached time slows...the assumption is somehow made though that this speed cannot be attained by man....probably right...maybe why God as a spirit and Eternal and is Light time is not a boundry....hum...

science makes man seek which is good....seek an ye shall find.

you'll find God.


WTF??? How does this relate to Einsteins theory?

And how are you so sure we'll find god through science? Because you believe God exists? Oh com'on, I mean I too believe that there might be something like a God, but that doesn't mean we can subscribe everything we can't explain to some supernatural being, for all I know this could as well be the Spaghetti Monster as well as the christian God or the Greek/Roman Gods. You are so sure that the christian God is the right one, care to explain why? Because most christians live in the rich parts of the world, because you are a christian, why? I mean I don't know if our God is the right one, and I certainly won't care to find out, because to me personally it doesn't matter if I believe in the right God or the wrong God, we're thankfully not prosecuted for our believes in our parts of the world, so I keep my belief to myself, and try not to push it on others.

[Stealth Hunter]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/Funny%20Stuff/sciencevsfaith.png

[VipertheSniper]

Hey I love that diagram

[Blacklight]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/Funny%20Stuff/sciencevsfaith.png

This illustrates almost exactly my point.

[Fish]

. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? .

-S

How do you explain the 'big bang' with God?
Or how do you explain God? :hmm:

[Letum]

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g17/Sgt-Smithy/Funny%20Stuff/sciencevsfaith.png
I don't like that chart, it misses a important first stage.

Science always starts with finding some evidence before a idea or hypothesis is created. The apple falling from the tree is the most obvious example.

i.e. Find evidence --> Make idea to fit evidence --> Preform experiment (and then the rest of the chart.)

Faiths don't need the falling apple to spark off a idea because all religious ideas
come from the dogmas found in religious texts.
Faiths tend to start with a idea from the selection of dogmas --> Make evidence fit idea --> Keep idea forever.

There is a very, very important difference between making the idea fit the evidence and
making the evidence fit the idea.

For a admirably brave attempt at making evidence fit a idea, see Iceman's post above.


. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? .

You assume that there was nothing "before" the bang and that nothing is a stable state.

[Stealth Hunter]

. And yes Skybird, how would one explain the Big Bang without god? .

-S

How do you explain the 'big bang' with God?
Or how do you explain God? :hmm:


That's like a hit right in SUBMAN's nuts.:rotfl:

God I love these kinds of wars.

EDIT:

Iceman,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png

Einstein proved that we could not travel faster than nor AT the speed of light because we would need more and more energy to fit such demands, thus making it an infinite amount and THUSLY impossible. There's no "probably" in that we cannot go faster than light. It's a fact.

[Tchocky]

In the beginning, there was a large explosion.

[Stealth Hunter]

Big Bang: the GREATEST phenomenon in the HISTORY of the universe.


Theoretically, something called a "White Hole" (the brother of a Black Hole) created the universe. Unlike its brother, White Holes build, they don't break down. IF White Holes DID in fact create the universe, then scientific evidence shows that there are OTHER universes besides ours.

To look at all the evidence and interpret it and imagine how small we are in the universe could literally drive you mad. In fact, I read a report recently that shows scientists who base their whole career off the universe have a higher chance of mental problems than regular people do.

[Skybird]

Book Hesekiel describes in detail an alien spaceship being embedded in an ancient temple. The description is so precise in details and measursings that two teams of engineers, i think one team of former NASA engineers, and a team of Germen engineers, managed to build two detailed models of this spaceship, independently from each other. And wonder oh wonder - both look almost the same. What a holy book it is! It was since then that I believe in E.T.!

and the documentation of the headache tablets i use says that if I take more than three of them, I eventually could feel dizzy, and maybe my stomach would rebel. what should I say: I took three tablets, and indeed I started to feel dizzy, and my stomach felt bad as well. holy cow of a scripture! It knew it altogether!

In the book Ainulindale, the creation of the world is described as beoinf formed of music, and sound, which means vibration and oscillation. Today science has shown us, that all matter and space is oscillating, and vibrating energy indeed. Holy sh!t! Messiah Tolkien was right! Ainulindale is the introduction of the holy book "The Silmarillion"! What a holy scripture that is! When we die, sinners surely go to hell, and winner head straight for Middleearth!

UFOs are for real, for the Bible tells me so. :up: I believe in the Stargate centre, and God being a divine Goauld. I believe in the mission of the holy Saint, Colonel O'Neill, and I believe that ancient Egypt was not run by the Greek, but a foreign race of extraterrestrial slave-holders.

---

Kopernikus, Darwin, Freud - and the church was done - period. Before I conclude from the Bible that deities are real, I prefer to believe in Goaulds indeed - that scenario at least makes much more sense. and if not these, than the flying spaghetti monster. If ethics cannot be imagined without believing in deities, than it means that man must almost invent and enforce gods, else he would not be able to structure his social communities.

But even non-theistic relgions have created ethics, even atheists have created ethics, and one could argue that they have caused much less violence and brutality and war and slaughtering and torture than the superior ethic of theism with corrupt churches, conquering Muslims and torturing inquisitors. Where I see hystery and violence and hate and tolerance and inhumane dogma and arrogance today, I know that theism most likely is not too far away.

Even more, man's ethics are far more superior than those of the psychopathic tyrant in heaven that the old testament describes to be "God". Killing all life on earth in a flooding, because people were disobedient? Hardening the heart of the pharao - and then casting penalties on him and on thousands of innocents and massacring thousands of first-born children as well - for pharao having been victim of God's psychological experiments? Nuking two cities with mice and cats and dogs and children for some people practicing sodomy? threatening to slaughter all Israelites when thy had fallen into doubt, and then turn the genocide sentence into death sentence for just threethousand men? Demanding Abraham to sacrifice his son all for nothing, just to test his submission and ignoring the man's despair? Putting test after test on Hiob and throwing him into doubt and despair, because of a bet? Demanding death penalty for coitus interruptus, homosexuality, cursing the parents, working on Sabbath? Telling the people of Israel they should slaughter or drive away foreign people living in a country that they should conquer in a war of aggression? What kind of sick a$$hole must such a god be? If he would be real we should lock him in an isolation cell in closed psychiatry for lifetime, and throw away the keys. The god of the old testament is as much a sinning, brutal, unjust, tyrannic psychopath as Saddam Hussein or Hitler have been.

If God ever knocks on my door, he better makes sure that at least he can brew some decent Green Tea - else I finish him off immediately. then he can play strippoker with guys like Hitler, Stalin and MaoTseTung until the end of all time in down under. The are just four different features of one and the same face. :down:

[Takeda Shingen]

EDIT:

Iceman,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png

Einstein proved that we could not travel faster than nor AT the speed of light because we would need more and more energy to fit such demands, thus making it an infinite amount and THUSLY impossible. There's no "probably" in that we cannot go faster than light. It's a fact.

Actually, both Special and General Relativity remain theories, albeit widely-accepted ones. Thus, there is a lot of 'probably' in the equations.

[August]

If God ever knocks on my door, he better makes sure that at least he can brew some decent Green Tea - else I finish him off immediately. then he can play strippoker with guys like Hitler, Stalin and MaoTseTung until the end of all time in down under. The are just four different features of one and the same face. :down:

"Finish him off" indeed. Do you tend to trip over that huge ego you tote around to every thread?

[CCIP]

I'm quiet in this thread because I think Skybird voiced my own views pretty clearly :|\\
(not to sound like a fanboy of course!)

I don't consider myself an aetheist in the traditional terms, but much less a believer in any traditional terms - yet I follow what I consider to be the real Christian philosophy (which I think Skybird nailed but went over most people's heads). I still tend to think of dogmatic religion and traditional concepts of God in most established religious organizations to be, frankly, insulting to all creation.

Ultimately all the fighting in this thread, Skybird-length posts included, is over dogmatism vs. pragmatism, if you had to simplify it to bare essentials. And I think it's clear which of the two a reason-oriented person would be inclined to go with...

But let's not go attacking each other now! Seriously. Noone's threatening anyone here.

[SUBMAN1]

Are you guys still jabbering about all this? Lets put it this way, you can't disprove god by claiming their are some whackos in the world. That is a given, and some of the whackos are practically blind militant whackos who defend their faith with weird ideas. But this really doesn't matter since your world you live in was shaped by more moderate religious people. A couple examples of things you enjoy because of religion:

Slavery comes to mind - the abolishment of it. Seems Christians got it right here.

How about Democracy? Without religion, you would have none of it, hence the reason Communists parties are so against religion.

How many do we need? Whatever. The point being if you like your world, you might want to consider who brought it to you.

-S


PS. As for your stupid graphs that ignore even my own arguments above - Yawn...

[VipertheSniper]

Are you guys still jabbering about all this? Lets put it this way, you can't disprove god by claiming their are some whackos in the world. That is a given, and some of the whackos are practically blind militant whackos who defend their faith with weird ideas. But this really doesn't matter since your world you live in was shaped by more moderate religious people. A couple examples of things you enjoy because of religion:

Slavery comes to mind - the abolishment of it. Seems Christians got it right here.

How about Democracy? Without religion, you would have none of it, hence the reason Communists parties are so against religion.

How many do we need? Whatever. The point being if you like your world, you might want to consider who brought it to you.

-S


PS. As for your stupid graphs that ignore even my own arguments above - Yawn...

AHHAHAHAHA forgive me that I burst out in unbelieving laughter, but Democracy was born out of religion? now that's a good one if I ever heard one... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: May I remind you that all the monarchs claimed that they were chosen by god?

[SUBMAN1]

AHHAHAHAHA forgive me that I burst out in unbelieving laughter, but Democracy was born out of religion? now that's a good one if I ever heard one... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: May I remind you that all the monarchs claimed that they were chosen by god?Maybe I should re-phrase that modern American democracy.

Of course monarchs did that. Makes it harder to knock off a king when one thinks he was put there by his creator. Problem is, there are snakes in all large areas of grass.

[Skybird]

EDIT:

Iceman,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png

Einstein proved that we could not travel faster than nor AT the speed of light because we would need more and more energy to fit such demands, thus making it an infinite amount and THUSLY impossible. There's no "probably" in that we cannot go faster than light. It's a fact.

Actually, both Special and General Relativity remain theories, albeit widely-accepted ones. Thus, there is a lot of 'probably' in the equations.
This is true, and also this: that these formulas are designed to fit and work in the kind of universe we assume it to be. What is completely excluded, for example, is the theories of alternative universes, and alternative dimensions. some scientists indicate it may be possible one day to work around the limits proclaimed by this formula by evading into an alternative dimenison that has no pendant to our dimension's "time", do the travel there in zero time, and then jump back into our own dimension, but at a very different location - or time.

Today that sounds like Star Trek and Science Fiction, yes. But that's why they said about flying to the moon and diving 20.000 miles beneath the sea, too. the point is: these ideas are seriously thought about.

E=mc2 means that at light speed you have accumulated infinite mass. In a universe that by current paradigm is considered to be limited and expanding, there cannbpot be something infinite then. This is the other way to explain why lightspeed cannot be acchieved. Although some particles seem to fly at light speed, and maybe even faster, and even backwards in time. But what do I know! :lol: just wondering what it feels like to have infinite mass. Anyway, it sounds politically most uncorrect. Maybe astronauts travelling with infinite mass at lightspeed just need a special diet. :lol:

Warning: incredibly fat astronauts being sighted in outer space...

Arthur C. Clarke: "The truth, as always, will be far stranger."

[VipertheSniper]

AHHAHAHAHA forgive me that I burst out in unbelieving laughter, but Democracy was born out of religion? now that's a good one if I ever heard one... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: May I remind you that all the monarchs claimed that they were chosen by god?Maybe I should re-phrase that modern American democracy.

Of course monarchs did that. Makes it harder to knock off a king when one thinks he was put there by his creator. Problem is, there are snakes in all large areas of grass. Can you point me to any sources, that modern American democracy was born out of religion? Or any good historians books on the founding of the USA?

[DeepIron]

Einstein proved that we could not travel faster than nor AT the speed of light because we would need more and more energy to fit such demands, thus making it an infinite amount and THUSLY impossible. There's no "probably" in that we cannot go faster than light. It's a fact.
A fact? Hardly. It's more of a premise because we don't currently know of anything *faster* than light... I'm a huge admirer of Einstein and his accomplishments, but as such, the GToR makes quite a few assumptions...

As a matter of fact, recent study and theory of the GToR has shown a number of "inconsistencies" and problems. This certainly doesn't diminish Einsteins work, we just have the computational power and observational technologies that were lacking in his day.

[Skybird]

AHHAHAHAHA forgive me that I burst out in unbelieving laughter, but Democracy was born out of religion? now that's a good one if I ever heard one... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You are right! Included in this are some unwelcome facts about the role of religion in the creation of America: religion was not wanted to be a founding principle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

[Skybird]

I don't like that chart, it misses a important first stage.

Science always starts with finding some evidence before a idea or hypothesis is created. The apple falling from the tree is the most obvious example.

What was first - the apple or the tree?

You stumble over your own leg here. It reminds me of the ,little talk we had in PM about constructivism. Point is, you cannot make the definite mark in time where science has started. the evidence you find may be by random chance - or by searching for it in a special way that is influenced by models basing on earlier evidence that were found by searching for special things or in special ways that were influenced by earlier theories depending on earlier evidence etc etc etc. You hardly even cannot mark the turning point when shammanism turned into modern mdeicine, and magic superstition turned into alchemy turned into science. It's a an ever-developing continuum, so to speak.

[Fish]

you can't disprove god by claiming their are some whackos in the world. .

We don't, at least not before you 'prove God'.

Care to answer my question?

How do you explain the 'big bang' with God?
Or how do you explain God? :hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

During the debate over ratification of the Constitution, many mainline Christians howled at its silence on religion. The Presbytery of Massachusetts and New Hampshire groused to George Washington, "we should not have been alone in rejoicing to have seen some explicit acknowledgment of THE TRUE ONLY GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST whom he has sent, inserted somewhere in the Magna Charta of our country." Washington demurred. "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction," he said. "To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country."



Reflected in this debate, two competing themes combined to compose the dissonant music of early American politics. The first theme, sounded in New England from the time of the Puritans, posited the ideal of a Christian Commonwealth. Uplifted by the imperatives of Christian morality, the government would be a shining city on a hill, fulfilling God's mandates and receiving his aid.



The second theme, codified in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, arose from Enlightenment France. Rather than that of Christian Commonwealth, it posited the ideal of individual freedom. Jefferson dreamed of establishing an Empire of Liberty, whose government sacredly would protect each individual's God–given freedom of conscience.



Both visions had religious dimensions—call them divine order and sacred liberty. Cast in terms of the nation's motto, "E pluribus unum" ("out of many, one"), the unum people believed that, in order to uphold "one nation under God," the secular and sacred realms must rest on a single foundation. Without a united sense of purpose and clear moral vision, they argued, liberty would lapse into license.

Champions of sacred liberty, pluribus people as it were, believed that, to promote "liberty and justice for all," the secular and religious realms must be kept autonomous. Government attempts to impose religious (or moral) values suppress religion instead, they claimed, by violating individual freedom of conscience. In the early Republic, the Baptist Church stood alongside Jefferson in the vanguard of those championing freedom of conscience and strict church-state separation.



The gathering consensus (from early in our history to now) unites aspects of both traditions, combining state protection of freedom of conscience with a strong tradition of moral politics. While church and state are separate under the Constitution, religion and politics mix freely in our national life.

[VipertheSniper]

AHHAHAHAHA forgive me that I burst out in unbelieving laughter, but Democracy was born out of religion? now that's a good one if I ever heard one... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You are right! Included in this are some unwelcome facts about the role of religion in the creation of America: religion was not wanted to be a founding principle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg


Already seen that. Thank you

[Stealth Hunter]

Einstein proved that we could not travel faster than nor AT the speed of light because we would need more and more energy to fit such demands, thus making it an infinite amount and THUSLY impossible. There's no "probably" in that we cannot go faster than light. It's a fact.
A fact? Hardly. It's more of a premise because we don't currently know of anything *faster* than light...

OK, that's making a wild assumption right there.

It is impossible to travel faster than light using a machine (and we're out of options there because we can't ride light beams like we can a subway). Machines cannot produce more energy than what you put in. That's a universal law, and I could lecture you on a whole unit about it.

Mass is what weighs us down in that equation. The amount of energy needed would be infinite, and the mass would drag us down just slightly before attaining the speed of light.

History Channel had a program on about 5 months ago that talked about the films in the Star Wars saga. One of the things covered was the "light-speed" idea. A professor from Harvard University explained the equation in detail (15-minutes worth of detail), and he said that it is impossible to travel faster or at the speed of light. Another 5 scientists were brought on, and they said the exact same thing.

Point: it's impossible to move faster than light OR travel at the speed of light.

[SUBMAN1]

I have to chime in here and say, there is something faster than the speed of light.

Also, the laws of physics don't apply to spacecraft leaving our solar system too. I believe the Pioneer spacecraft is now 400 mi from where it should be, and for some odd reason, it is accelerating.

Also, for the thing that is faster than the speed of light - a tachyon. Problem is viewing one, since you have to slow it down to do so. This is especially hard though because a tachyon traveling faster than the speed of light is actually travelling backwards in time, so it ceases to exist, before it exists.

So, if you are on the same dimensional time plane as 'us', then a tachyon can never exist, but since we are in a multi dimensional universe, and it is very much possible to exceed the speed of light, it does exsist, just not in our dimensional plane.

The point being, E=MC2 works, but it only works in our existence. It is also not the perfect equation as shown by the accelerating spacecraft. But if you were religious, you would already know you are not in a perfect world so nothing is perfect (yet)! :p

-S

PS. We will learn much in the coming few years through CERN's particle accelerator. It is actually an exciting time to be alive. I think we will not only get anti-matter, but possibly many other answers and elements, possibly something extreme!

[CCIP]

I think we will not only get anti-matter, but possibly many other answers and elements, possibly something extreme!
Like that artificial micro-singularity that wipes out the entire earth and solar system? :dead:











:p

I jest. Maybe.

Yes, I agree, if we can keep from destroying ourselves there's really some very interesting things that are about-to-be-discovered. :yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

Subman,


Once again, the scientists say you cannot move faster than light. They are scientists that are employed by the government. Not the smartest government in the world, but they just build stuff for them. They say we cannot move faster than light, so that's that.

You're not a scientist, are you?:roll:


-SH

[Deamon]

E=mc2 means that at light speed you have accumulated infinite mass. In a universe that by current paradigm is considered to be limited and expanding, there cannbpot be something infinite then. This is the other way to explain why lightspeed cannot be acchieved. Although some particles seem to fly at light speed, and maybe even faster, and even backwards in time.
I remember a docu where a scientist told that they have accelerated some particles to 200 times faster than lightspeed.

[Fish]

I have to chime in here and say, there is something faster than the speed of light.

Also, the laws of physics don't apply to spacecraft leaving our solar system too. I believe the Pioneer spacecraft is now 400 mi from where it should be, and for some odd reason, it is accelerating.

Also, for the thing that is faster than the speed of light - a tachyon. Problem is viewing one, since you have to slow it down to do so. This is especially hard though because a tachyon traveling faster than the speed of light is actually travelling backwards in time, so it ceases to exist, before it exists.

So, if you are on the same dimensional time plane as 'us', then a tachyon can never exist, but since we are in a multi dimensional universe, and it is very much possible to exceed the speed of light, it does exsist, just not in our dimensional plane.

The point being, E=MC2 works, but it only works in our existence. It is also not the perfect equation as shown by the accelerating spacecraft. But if you were religious, you would already know you are not in a perfect world so nothing is perfect (yet)! :p

-S

PS. We will learn much in the coming few years through CERN's particle accelerator. It is actually an exciting time to be alive. I think we will not only get anti-matter, but possibly many other answers and elements, possibly something extreme!

Interesting, but far above my head.:oops:


What does this prove?

The Pioneer's RF accelerated and, to compensate for perception, its speed of light decreased proportionally. Because of that, the spacecraft time experience didn't change.
If we take velocity formula v=s/t and consider same value gravity driven meter (s) and second (t) contraction, velocity (v) for each RF, which is in our case c, wouldn’t change. But since the (t) and (s) unit values would differ from our RF, c unit would be different correspondingly.
Pioneer's distance from the Earth was measured by a signal travelling at, as considered wrong, the constant speed of light. While Pioneer's meter and second became shorter, the light seconds got shorter proportionally. In other words, in one second of our time, light travelled shorter way. Seeing from our RF layer, the light was slowing down. Because of travelling shorter way, the signal with a time code we sent to Pioneer came back a little bit to early. By calculating time it spend travelling, with Earth’s "physical constant" speed of light, and knowing its travelling speed, it is obvious that the result would lead to a conclusion that Pioneer is slowing down (fig. 14b). Pioneer’s tracking data is actually a function of its meter, time and light speed contraction driven by gravity.
http://www.principiauniversi.com/pages/methods/pu_method_03_pioneer.html

[DeepIron]

The point being, E=MC2 works, but it only works in our existence. Exactly. And even that is conjectural as we have no "hard facts" to back it up. Everything is theoretical, based on "less than perfect" observation and assumptions.

It's ironic to me that the whole FTL discussion is dependent on your "frame of reference", a key point in FTL theory...

[Letum]

I don't like that chart, it misses a important first stage.

Science always starts with finding some evidence before a idea or hypothesis is created. The apple falling from the tree is the most obvious example.
What was first - the apple or the tree?

You stumble over your own leg here. It reminds me of the ,little talk we had in PM about constructivism. Point is, you cannot make the definite mark in time where science has started. the evidence you find may be by random chance - or by searching for it in a special way that is influenced by models basing on earlier evidence that were found by searching for special things or in special ways that were influenced by earlier theories depending on earlier evidence etc etc etc. You hardly even cannot mark the turning point when shammanism turned into modern mdeicine, and magic superstition turned into alchemy turned into science. It's a an ever-developing continuum, so to speak.

When I said " Science always starts" I was refering to a single line of enquiery, not
the history of science as a whole. Indeed, any specific line of enquiery is started either
by a expansion, change or revolution of a old theory or from a new found evidence
that may, or may not, have been searched for.
That is not to say that those based on newly found evidences can be abstracted from
the network of knowlage without dragging up the strings of associations that eventualy
lead to the foundation of axioms that natural science is based upon.

I conceed that the axioms of natural science are deeply flawed and weak, but there are
many axioms that can be relied upon to build our ontological knowlage on a firm base.


I still intend to reply to your last pms, I am working on it. Please exscuse my spelling in this post,
I am lost without my spellchecker.

[Skybird]

I still intend to reply to your last pms, I am working on it.

Well, I've already forgot most of it anyway and have no copies anymore, and distraction from the xmas days is near, so what the heck... :lol:

Please exscuse my spelling in this post,
I am lost without my spellchecker.
What should I say then? I even do not use a spellchecker at all - takes too much time . :lol: My messy language is from typing too fast. Faster than I could tak in English, to be precise...

[Skybird]

Like that artificial micro-singularity that wipes out the entire earth and solar system? :dead:

The ultimate chance equalizer for any debate!

[Skybird]

Also, the laws of physics don't apply to spacecraft leaving our solar system too. I believe the Pioneer spacecraft is now 400 mi from where it should be, and for some odd reason, it is accelerating.

Hu? I would say that we simply do not know all variables, and maybe also not all physics laws, then. The theory that Bioneer operates outside the laws of physics becaseu it left a stellar system is not needed currently.

[Tchocky]

Just watched the video, that's horrible.
Spritualism by rote, get the kids into your church before their minds can cope. Of course it's the True Word, because we're not brainwashing anyone, are we?

ugh

[DeepIron]

"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically." ~ A. Einstein

[Chock]

All this theoretical stuff is interesting, but we ought to bear in mind that it is, like most cutting edge science, a theory, until another one comes along. Go back far enough and you'll find instances of scientists telling you that going faster than 30mph would cause you to suffocate, more recently that you couldn't break Mach 1 because of compressability, a few of the Manhattan project scientists speculated that the first atomic bomb they tested would set the atmosphere on fire. All theories, all proved incorrect, and yet reasonably believable at the time. So when scientists come along and say you can't travel faster than the speed of light, it always makes me think 'oh yeah? You just wait and see...'

:D Chock

[Tchocky]

So when scientists come along and say you can't travel faster than the speed of light, it always makes me think 'oh yeah? You just wait and see...'
Or, wait and you won't see sh*t. But we'll have done it :p

[Chock]

The more the merrier Spooka 2 :up:

:D Chock

[SUBMAN1]

So when scientists come along and say you can't travel faster than the speed of light, it always makes me think 'oh yeah? You just wait and see...' Or, wait and you won't see sh*t. But we'll have done it :pThey said you could never break the speed of sound earlier in the last Century. An idea - The speed of light can be broken if you encapsulate your immediate space, and then proceed so as not to turn into pure energy.

None of this crap will happen in our lifetime, at least not on a spacecraft level. We have hardly left the earth yet. Then again, if you can control gravity, who needs to travel at the speed of light? You will simply be able to warp space time.

-S

[Chock]

Yeah, that was a cool show, but I think it was more a case of 'what people dreamed of', rather than what was in Star Trek.

:D Chock

[Iceman]

The other side of this coin is...

String theory...the "big Bangeroo"...Einstein's thory of "Everything....E=MC2....all mans attempt to understand things our pea brains grasp at yet the raw truth is not going to be that complex I would think....

I went thru this before with some of you...

1. A big bang = Genesis 1 [3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

2. Age of the universe,The age of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe), in physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), is the time elapsed between the Big Bang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) and the present day. Current observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Age_based_on_WMAP) suggest that this is about 13.7 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_%28number%29) years, with an uncertainty of about 200 million years.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#_note-NASA)"wiki"
=
6 days the heavens and earth were created the 7th day the Lord God rested....it is only mans assumptions a day to God is as a day to man....time to an Eternal being is not relevant Time is an equation unique to man and this current exsistence.


With this I can agree although it seems far fetched to me to deduce from that, that the universe was created by (our, or any) God.


3.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/a/1/2a102cbc76fff187a11e65966997b729.png where

E = the energy equivalent to the mass (in joules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joule))
m = the mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass) (in kilograms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilogram))
c = the speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light) in a vacuum (celeritas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celeritas)) (in meters per second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre_per_second)). "Wiki"=

Luke 17
[6] And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.

Which also relates to Einsteins discovery of the faster the speed of light is approached time slows...the assumption is somehow made though that this speed cannot be attained by man....probably right...maybe why God as a spirit and Eternal and is Light time is not a boundry....hum...

science makes man seek which is good....seek an ye shall find.

you'll find God.


WTF??? How does this relate to Einsteins theory?

And how are you so sure we'll find god through science? Because you believe God exists? Oh com'on, I mean I too believe that there might be something like a God, but that doesn't mean we can subscribe everything we can't explain to some supernatural being, for all I know this could as well be the Spaghetti Monster as well as the christian God or the Greek/Roman Gods. You are so sure that the christian God is the right one, care to explain why? Because most christians live in the rich parts of the world, because you are a christian, why? I mean I don't know if our God is the right one, and I certainly won't care to find out, because to me personally it doesn't matter if I believe in the right God or the wrong God, we're thankfully not prosecuted for our believes in our parts of the world, so I keep my belief to myself, and try not to push it on others.

I relates in the fact that a small amount of something contains great power....if one knows the secret to unlocking it.

No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and no man knoweth the Son and save who the Father will reveal...

All must enter in thru the door else are considered a thief and a robber.

The theory of E=MC2 and special relativity etc somewhere in there state that with enough energy one could create gold or whatever else one would want to create....the amount of energy needed to do so to man seems imcomprehensible...yet possible even to man.

point is the relationship if one would only look and see in regards to speed of light,time and energy..

many of these concepts are beyond many subsim members yet the knowledge is available if they would look....the so-called Xperts/scientists...don't really know Jack Squat....and that is the hard facts baby. :) Merry Christmas

[Ducimus]

With a thread title like this, i just knew this thread was gonna get "interesting". :rotfl:

[SUBMAN1]

With a thread title like this, i just knew this thread was gonna get "interesting". :rotfl:You forgot the entertaining part too! :D

-S

[Hakahura]

Just watched the video from the start of this thread.

:nope:

Makes me glad that here in the UK we suffer from a moral decline in society, if this is what organised religion wants to force down kids throats. I'm all for freedom of speach, but this is just crazy. It atstonishes me that people actually believe these lines of reasoning.

If my kids came home spouting this nonesense it would take me 2 days to stop laughing at them before I could even start to try an repair the damage.

It's comical, sad and disturbing all at the same time.

[VipertheSniper]

I relates in the fact that a small amount of something contains great power....if one knows the secret to unlocking it.

No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and no man knoweth the Son and save who the Father will reveal...

All must enter in thru the door else are considered a thief and a robber.

The theory of E=MC2 and special relativity etc somewhere in there state that with enough energy one could create gold or whatever else one would want to create....the amount of energy needed to do so to man seems imcomprehensible...yet possible even to man.

point is the relationship if one would only look and see in regards to speed of light,time and energy..

many of these concepts are beyond many subsim members yet the knowledge is available if they would look....the so-called Xperts/scientists...don't really know Jack Squat....and that is the hard facts baby. :) Merry Christmas

The only one who knows Jack Squat is you my friend, E=MC^2 is not some alchemistic formula which would allow you to create gold or whatever with just enough energy.

Edit: I'm still waiting for an answer WHY you think that the Christian God is the right one.

[DeepIron]

The only one who knows Jack Squat is you my friend, E=MC^2 is not some alchemistic formula which would allow you to create gold or whatever with just enough energy.

Why not? If one followed your course of thinking, then there would be ONE element in the Universe, probably hydrogen, the simpleist on the atomic scale.

If energy cannot change the atomic structure of matter, what can?

[Skybird]

I would not look at matter and energy as two different things that much.

[VipertheSniper]

The only one who knows Jack Squat is you my friend, E=MC^2 is not some alchemistic formula which would allow you to create gold or whatever with just enough energy.

Why not? If one followed your course of thinking, then there would be ONE element in the Universe, probably hydrogen, the simpleist on the atomic scale.

If energy cannot change the atomic structure of matter, what can?

Only that other elements are products of fusion, and not of accelerating them up to light speed...

[DeepIron]

Only that other elements are products of fusion, and not of accelerating them up to light speed...
Nuclear fusion *is* a perfect example of Einsteins mass/speed relationship: the fusion of elements that sustains stellar processes is highly dependent upon the extreme speeds of atomic nuclei. E=mc^2 is a fitting equation to support stellar fusion, ie; a little mass (m) moving at high velocity (c^2) creates enormous energy (E). :up:

It seems to me that those elements that are found in the Periodic Table of Elements such as gold, lead, etc, must have been created by an application of energy such as that found in stars. If the atomic structure of elements can be changed by application of energy in accordance with Einsteins formula, it should be *theoretically* possible to create ANY element from another by proper application of mass and energy.

[August]

I hope it is OK for me to respond here. I've only just became a Subsim.com member an am not real sure about the ettiquete.

Theories reside in the mind, beliefs resides in the heart.

I hope that is OK. Let me know if I have overstepped my bounds.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion Spooka, including n00bs, so feel free. :up:

[TLAM Strike]

I have to chime in here and say, there is something faster than the speed of light.

Also, the laws of physics don't apply to spacecraft leaving our solar system too. I believe the Pioneer spacecraft is now 400 mi from where it should be, and for some odd reason, it is accelerating.

Also, for the thing that is faster than the speed of light - a tachyon. Problem is viewing one, since you have to slow it down to do so. This is especially hard though because a tachyon traveling faster than the speed of light is actually travelling backwards in time, so it ceases to exist, before it exists.

So, if you are on the same dimensional time plane as 'us', then a tachyon can never exist, but since we are in a multi dimensional universe, and it is very much possible to exceed the speed of light, it does exsist, just not in our dimensional plane.

The point being, E=MC2 works, but it only works in our existence. It is also not the perfect equation as shown by the accelerating spacecraft. But if you were religious, you would already know you are not in a perfect world so nothing is perfect (yet)! :p

-S

PS. We will learn much in the coming few years through CERN's particle accelerator. It is actually an exciting time to be alive. I think we will not only get anti-matter, but possibly many other answers and elements, possibly something extreme! Thanks for pointing that out you did it far better than I would have.

Relitivity says you can't accelrate faster than light. Relitivity dosn't affect objects already traveling faster than light (IE Tachons), I think Einsten said as much.

[Iceman]

Only that other elements are products of fusion, and not of accelerating them up to light speed...
Nuclear fusion *is* a perfect example of Einsteins mass/speed relationship: the fusion of elements that sustains stellar processes is highly dependent upon the extreme speeds of atomic nuclei. E=mc^2 is a fitting equation to support stellar fusion, ie; a little mass (m) moving at high velocity (c^2) creates enormous energy (E). :up:

It seems to me that those elements that are found in the Periodic Table of Elements such as gold, lead, etc, must have been created by an application of energy such as that found in stars. If the atomic structure of elements can be changed by application of energy in accordance with Einsteins formula, it should be *theoretically* possible to create ANY element from another by proper application of mass and energy.

Thank you...Theoretically with man....childs play to the creator.

To: Viper the Sniper...
I never said the Christian God is the right god....the choice is yours as to what to believe.

We decide....you decide.

I do not shove anything down anyone's throat that is a perception and a defensive repsonse by you or alot of people not realizing it.

Science is probably more close to the truths than most yet farthest away from what really matters which is people,love, the basic 10 commandments naturally ingrained in the human soul yet we deny.

These are my opinions and beliefs based on my life experiences....do the research and make your own choices.I only try to show the relationships of what man is discovering on his own through science and point out these are not new concepts but the ability to control ones surroundings has been available for thousands of years....with the proper application of faith.

Grain of the mustard seed.

Skybird just knew I'd love the topic thread title...lol..war on science lol...dat cracks me up.

[Skybird]

Skybird just knew I'd love the topic thread title...lol..war on science lol...dat cracks me up.

Just that I did not start this topic... :roll:

[Iceman]

Skybird just knew I'd love the topic thread title...lol..war on science lol...dat cracks me up.

Just that I did not start this topic... :roll:

I'm sorry...I made a boo boo there..my apoligies. :oops: I feel like a donkey.

[Stealth Hunter]

They said you could never break the speed of sound earlier in the last Century. An idea - The speed of light can be broken if you encapsulate your immediate space, and then proceed so as not to turn into pure energy.

None of this crap will happen in our lifetime, at least not on a spacecraft level. We have hardly left the earth yet. Then again, if you can control gravity, who needs to travel at the speed of light? You will simply be able to warp space time.

-S

Did you not just hear what I said?

Five governmental scientists and a professor from Harvard have said we cannot go faster than light. Light IS the fastest thing we have. They ARE the best. They know what they're talking about, unlike a guy randomly talking about science fiction on the Internet.

[Skybird]

Five governmental scientists and a professor from Harvard have said we cannot go faster than light. Light IS the fastest thing we have. They ARE the best. They know what they're talking about, unlike a guy randomly talking about science fiction on the Internet.
Before these five best scientists, there were five others being the five best. and before them it were other five guys. and in a 50 years or so, another five will be seen as the best. I fear you have no claim here, StealthHunter. What you do is - freezing history at it's current point.

Science is a set of theories in constant change. as long as these theories only see minor modifications, they built a paradigm (a "super-theory", if you want) that all in all remains valid for a longer while. then there is some revolutionary new idea, concept or finding, or a combination of all, and many theories do not survive that, while the rest sees major alteration. Then a paradigm gets replaced by another one. Sometimes several paradigms coexist at the same time, being valid for different aspects of what we call "reality". Newton physics and quantum theory for example.

that five scientists are being seen as qualfied is no argument for a theory being engraved into stone for all time being. Better don't dogmatically believe in it's current status - it constantly changes slightly, almost every day.

And btw - all the top five guys - nevertheless can be wrong. ;)

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm afraid you have no claim either.

The scientists on this matter have the details, they have the intelligence that you and I together couldn't even hope to possess, and they have the technology. They've said countless times it is impossible to go faster than light, and that's that.

These people are GENIUSES to be employed by the government (and at Harvard as was the professor's case; although I wouldn't necessarily say that about him). They know what they're talking about.

[Chock]

They ARE the best. They know what they're talking about
Actually, if they are coming up with theories, it's true they may indeed know what they are talking about, and they may be the best theories we can find, but that doesn't mean they are correct. They may have a good idea about what's going on on the other side of the universe, but without actually going there, they can't possibly know for sure what's going on there. This might piss them off, but they're just going to have to get over the fact that they don't, won't and can't ever be sure about their theories being completely correct in every spot in the universe, or another dimension, or anywhere else they can't go to measure stuff properly.

As such, anyone else is entitled to come up with a theory about stuff if they like, and without the absolute proof that one is definitely right and the other is definitely wrong, who's to say what can and cannot be done. I think you are giving guys with theories to much credence there. Respected government scientists reckoned Columbus was going to sail off the edge of the world when he set off, Copernicus damn near got himself burned at the stake for suggesting the earth went around the sun in contradiction to what all the other respected scientists of the time claimed.

:D Chock

[mrbeast]

Five governmental scientists and a professor from Harvard have said we cannot go faster than light. Light IS the fastest thing we have. They ARE the best. They know what they're talking about, unlike a guy randomly talking about science fiction on the Internet.
Before these five best scientists, there were five others being the five best. and before them it were other five guys. and in a 50 years or so, another five will be seen as the best. I fear you have no claim here, StealthHunter. What you do is - freezing history at it's current point.

Science is a set of theories in constant change. as long as these theories only see minor modifications, they built a paradigm (a "super-theory", if you want) that all in all remains valid for a longer while. then there is some revolutionary new idea, concept or finding, or a combination of all, and many theories do not survive that, while the rest sees major alteration. Then a paradigm gets replaced by another one. Sometimes several paradigms coexist at the same time, being valid for different aspects of what we call "reality". Newton physics and quantum theory for example.

that five scientists are being seen as qualfied is no argument for a theory being engraved into stone for all time being. Better don't dogmatically believe in it's current status - it constantly changes slightly, almost every day.

I think the phrase required is...As far as we know.......

Good science is always framed in terms of the limits of our current knowledge as opposed to something being a dogmatic 'truth'. So indeed the current scietific consensus is that it is not possible to travel at or faster than the speed of light, but the limits of human knowledge are being challenged everyday so in the future current thinking may change.

[Stealth Hunter]

Then do explain to us, 'o wise one of the stars, what is right and wrong in our theories?:hmm:

You can't achieve the speed of light. In a machine, you'll break to pieces before you even get CLOSE to the speed at which light travels. You can't ride on light beams, either. That's like saying Star Trek was right in teleporters. It's nonsense. If you're going to move as fast as light can, you're going to have to be light. Assuming you DID become light, you're never going to be able to stop, and you're basically dead. As we all know, you must be in one piece if you're going to live, and light won't allow that (neither will black holes; your matter will basically become like sand, and you'll be destroyed).:dead:

Once again, the scientists have the answers to this question. Although it's considered a theory by some, it's one of the many that has a final "CASE CLOSED" written all over it.:shifty:

Theoretically, if you believe in alternate universes, it is possible, but nobody IN our universe can answer that, not even Cthulhu.:rotfl: (JK)

Seriously though, the universe is the same all over. If you were to map it, it would be the same (excluding planets and such). GRAVITY is what would be different (Jupiter has a HUGE influence on Earth), but gravity doesn't affect light.:know:

[Letum]

Five governmental scientists and a professor from Harvard have said we cannot go faster than light. Light IS the fastest thing we have. They ARE the best. They know what they're talking about, unlike a guy randomly talking about science fiction on the Internet. Before these five best scientists, there were five others being the five best. and before them it were other five guys. and in a 50 years or so, another five will be seen as the best. I fear you have no claim here, StealthHunter. What you do is - freezing history at it's current point.

Science is a set of theories in constant change. as long as these theories only see minor modifications, they built a paradigm (a "super-theory", if you want) that all in all remains valid for a longer while. then there is some revolutionary new idea, concept or finding, or a combination of all, and many theories do not survive that, while the rest sees major alteration. Then a paradigm gets replaced by another one. Sometimes several paradigms coexist at the same time, being valid for different aspects of what we call "reality". Newton physics and quantum theory for example.

that five scientists are being seen as qualfied is no argument for a theory being engraved into stone for all time being. Better don't dogmatically believe in it's current status - it constantly changes slightly, almost every day.

And btw - all the top five guys - nevertheless can be wrong. ;)

We can be sure that old theories are invalid.
We can not be sure of the validity of current theories, but we can not be sure that
they are invalid.
To all intents and purposes this makes them more valid.

How so?:
Because we can show old theories to be conclusively incoherent.

Coherency is indicative of truth because:

Nothing incoherent can be true. This is self evident as even randomality is coherent.

Nothing coherent can be totally false as no series of explanations can remain can
remain coherent without something in common.

The flaws in induction and our poor ability to recognise incoherency all the time
mean that we can not be sure we have found the ontological truth, but we can
know what is not true due to it's incoherency.

Of course, this does not leave us with much, as it isn't hard to cast doubt on the coherancy of most of our experiances and explanations.

[mrbeast]

GRAVITY is what would be different (Jupiter has a HUGE influence on Earth), but gravity doesn't affect light.:know:

Actually gravety does affect light. Although photons have no mass, gravity bends space which has the side effect of bending light. For example light can be bent around an object which has a strong gravitational field, a black hole for example would bend light around it. :know:

[Stealth Hunter]

Alright, I'm done with light speed for the moment. You stubborn asses have your minds made up and you're not going to change on that.:roll:

SO, what do you personally feel on evangelical beliefs?

EDIT:

Mr. Beast,

Indeed it does on that part, but speed it has no effect on. That's my point.

Thank you for adding on, though. I probably should have mentioned that.

[Onkel Neal]

You can't achieve the speed of light. In a machine, you'll break to pieces before you even get CLOSE to the speed at which light travels. You can't ride on light beams, either. That's like saying Star Trek was right in teleporters. It's nonsense. If you're going to move as fast as light can, you're going to have to be light. Assuming you DID become light, you're never going to be able to stop, and you're basically dead. As we all know, you must be in one piece if you're going to live, and light won't allow that (neither will black holes; your matter will basically become like sand, and you'll be destroyed).:dead:

Hmm... sounds sort of like some things said in the past. You cannot sail around the world. If man were meant to fly, he would have wings. No one can go faster than the speed of sound. Forget travel to the moon, that's crazy talk. :) Can't go faster than the speed of light? Then we will raise the speed of light, and go faster. No one can say what is possible tomorrow with the knowledge of today.

[SUBMAN1]

Hmm... sounds sort of like some things said in the past. You cannot sail around the world. If man were meant to fly, he would have wings. No one can go faster than the speed of sound. Forget travel to the moon, that's crazy talk. :) Can't go faster than the speed of light? Then we will raise the speed of light, and go faster. No one can say what is possible tomorrow with the knowledge of today.Finally someone with some sense.

And depending on which scientist you are talking about, some say you can or we will find a way, and some say we can't. Either way, Until someone has some better theories, I could care less.

-S

[Stealth Hunter]

It's that Asian one. They always have him on spacey programs, and he normally talks about phenomenons in the universe.

By the way, flying has never been impossible. That's something that birds do all the time. Man did not evolve from birds, he came from mammals; henceforth, man was not graced with wings. Man thus built the airplane to move the air particles which have always been around human beings to fly.

Sailing around the world was quite possible, they just needed ships and supplies to do it (also courage). Water is something many natural creatures can traverse through. Nature's law is that it's possible to traverse by some form of creature.

Speed of sound is HUGELY slower than the speed of light.

Going to the moon: very difficult but possible.

Traveling at the speed of a light beam: impossible and read below to find out why.

Simply put, try to make sense of the situation. Technology isn't going to help move us at the speed of light. Any rational scientist and/or inventor will tell you that. You're going to have to be a beam of light if you want it to work.

Do you know how fast light goes? Roughly 299,792,458 METERS PER SECOND. Sound travels at 340 meters per second. The difference is 299,752,118 meters per second.

So tell me, Capn' Solo, how are we going to travel at 299,792,458 meters per second? Simple: we can't. We don't possess ANYTHING that could withstand such speeds. Assuming we used this in space, then we'd hit something in the process. A piece of space rock the size of a pebble hitting your "Millennium Falcon" would be like a piece of the sun hitting the ship like a bullet. That's going to cause an explosive decompression, and you're all going to die very quick but EXTREMELY PAINFUL deaths (your lungs will explode, as will your eyes and eardrums, and you'll basically explode into meat chunks the size of sand grains as your pieces hurl throughout eternity).

That said, Mr. Steven Hawking can tell you that turning humans into light beams and shooting them throughout space is not only ludicrous as it is science fiction, but also it would be immediately fatal. It's very similar to a Black Hole. If a human were sucked into one, you would turn to a "sand-like" form (that is to say your mass would break down into tiny particles and fly round and round inside the Black Hole, basically killing you as soon as you rip apart) and die because, as I said in the brackets, your body would basically rip itself apart and you'd die THE INSTANT YOU BECAME LIGHT.

Also, human particle make-up can't be made into light. You can rip us apart, but the pieces will still have mass. In short, even if you wouldn't die being hurled around on a light beam, your body's mass would remain in the light particles, and you'd weigh the beams down and you could NEVER hit light speed. You might be off something like .9 or .001 meters per second, but you're still not at light speed.

[Skybird]

I'm afraid you have no claim either.

The scientists on this matter have the details, they have the intelligence that you and I together couldn't even hope to possess, and they have the technology. They've said countless times it is impossible to go faster than light, and that's that.

These people are GENIUSES to be employed by the government (and at Harvard as was the professor's case; although I wouldn't necessarily say that about him). They know what they're talking about.
Yes, I have no claim in there. I just remind you that your belief they were in possession of all knowledge there is about the universe - is naive. No matter how much they get payed. No matter the technology available to you. do you think that science has stopped some years in the past? All insights by science - are temprary, they are valid for the time being. And the assumption that in the future we will not have learned more, and different things, and maybe find out that our previous thoughts were wrong, is - well, naive.

In the past, like today you believe light speed cannot be broken, surpassed or walked around, other people believed that if they sail too far away, they would fall off the earth - it was IMPOSSIBLE to sail around the earth - becasue nobody knew that earth is no disc, but a globe. And many people back then argued the same way like you do: it is said that by wise man and people who really should know it, that it is impossible, becasue they wear nice cloathing, and have a high incokme from the church, the king, whomever.

Until just years ago, science believed that certain types of n eural fibres cannot be healed. Today we know it better. It was believed that moving backwards in time is impossible. Today we know of particles who do exactly that (and they move even faster than light). cloning organs once was science fiction - we are on the way. The speed of sound could not be reached. we can brake it ba a mutiple factor today. Man walking on the moon - impossible. Well, really? Blind will never see again - first gadgets giving them at least primitive black-white contours inside their brain are being tested and prooved to work in every-day living conditions. Functional centres of the brain, once destroyed, cannot be replaced. We know today that in principle the brain has the ability to let at least some lost functions being taken over by other brain areas as well.

One day, speed of light will be added to this list. If not by breaking the light barrier - then by walking around it. Assuming of course that our civilisation survives long enough, which is not a given.

However, "The scientists on this matter have the details, they have the intelligence that you and I together couldn't even hope to possess, and they have the technology. They've said countless times it is impossible to go faster than light, and that's that. These people are GENIUSES to be employed by the government " is not an argument proving the validity of your claim. stop seeihng them as the holy saints of science. They are not - they are just scientists. A scientist who would say that he has found the end of research, knowledge and evolution, is a fool. and I doubt that any of your four geniusses would say that.

[Skybird]

Seriously though, the universe is the same all over. If you were to map it, it would be the same (excluding planets and such).
That's a theory of yours, but you do not know - or have you been "there"?

I get the impression you totally ignore the nature of science itself where you said "Then do explain to us, 'o wise one of the stars, what is right and wrong in our theories". The confusion is not about right and wrong in sciences, but to see that science does not produce the penultimate truth. It produces, alters, falsifies, changes THEORIES. Not more, not less.

e=mc2 means that an object grows in mass the closer it gets to lightspeed, until it's mass is infinite when having reached lightspeed, which has two consequences: infinite mass needs infinte energy to be moved, and infinite mass is only possible in a universe that is considered to be infinite in diemnsion as well. That means it is not the object but the whole universe moving at lightspeed (which is not possible if the universe is infinite, becasue in what space or dimension does it move when itself is infinite). So I understand perfectly why it is said and thought lightspeed cannot be reached. but it is a theory nevertheless, born from three-dimensionsl logic and man-made reason. that we cannot imagine it any better CURRENTLY does not chnage the fact. You said it yourself somewhere above: "as long as we do not become a beam of light ourselves". There you already have produced an imagination of working around. Others would say to move into another dimension to travel in zero time inside our own dimension/universe (the Warp-bubbles in Star Trek are such an approach). You could even add the manipulation of this universe's rules and structure to the list of possible workarounds. All this are working hypothesis. they are given thought, and the better our technology becomes, the more we will be able to test them.

What is light? you can prove me that it is particle, and I would be unable to defeat your theory and evidence - you are right. But I can prove you that it is a wave, and you are unable to defeat this theory as well, becasue I can give evidence as well. It depends on the observer, and his approach. That's why today we say that light has a dual nature, and is either particle or wave, depending on the observer. It may be both at the same time, or it may switch between both states depending on oyur way to look at it - we don't know.

That should be a warning about seeing theories as a penultimate truth.

Steven Hawking repeatedly had corrected former theories of him. That said, consider that the difference between energy and matter is not really solid. Matter is energy, energy is matter, both can shift into the other state, can be transformed. Geologists also can tell you, from a much more profane view. Nothing ever gets lost, it only gets transformed. Atoms are mostly empty space, and what remains in subnuclear particles - again is only empty space. They do not talk of siolid matter there, but of probability clouds for tendencies to exist or not to exist. What concpetion is that to make sense of a "solid" interpretation of matter being something "real", "solid", "massive"? The deeper you look into the universe with telescope, the ore you travel back into time. You do not see what is there - you see what once, long time ago, was there. Long time ago? What is time? Some people would tell you our conept of time is wrong, that there is no time indeed. I tend to be in that camp, for non-scientific reasons. Time is a function of the activity of our consiciousness. Wjhat is our consciousness? Empty space, filled with many potentials. You may wonder what all this has to do with lightspeed. I try to widen your mind a bit, with fanatsy and imignation. Einstein said: "more important than knowledge is imagination". Newton said something like "I felt like a little kid, playing with stones at the beach". It is visions that lead us further, not the status quo. We need to play around with things, to invent new approaches, see new possible alternatives. I do not think, for example, that astronomy ever is a complete approach on space, as long as it does not include our "inner space" as well. That is why I think the opening sequence of "Contact" is such a beautiful and powerful vision - all universe in the little girl's eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLQF-4uyD4Y

In the end, space travel and inner space travel may be less far apart than most sane people today will dare to imagine.

[Tchocky]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/18/Southpinellas/Origin_theories_clash.shtml

:dead:

[Iceman]

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/12/18/Southpinellas/Origin_theories_clash.shtml

:dead:

hey great article chocky...:up:

"
The theories
What is intelligent design?
The theory, espoused by English theologian William Paley, that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence. The idea prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859.
What is evolution?
The theory, formulated by English naturalist Charles Darwin, that various types of animals and plants have their origin in other pre-existing types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. "


The "Intelligent Design" idea prevailed as an explanation of the natural world until the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species in 1859....

so in 1859....someone finally figured it all out...man I'm glad I live now...all the other people who ever lived did'nt have a flipping clue....thks chock.

To ignore other possibilites only limits yourself....it's a WAR...it's a Jihad on Science....lol....man I love you guys. :know:

Great video Skybird

[Skybird]

She pointed to a recent study that found American students lagging behind many of their international peers in science.
"Let's start teaching the Bible as science," Clark said, "and then see how our students compete against the rest of the world."
Bump.

[Stealth Hunter]

Seriously though, the universe is the same all over. If you were to map it, it would be the same (excluding planets and such).
That's a theory of yours, but you do not know - or have you been "there"?

I get the impression you totally ignore the nature of science itself where you said "Then do explain to us, 'o wise one of the stars, what is right and wrong in our theories". The confusion is not about right and wrong in sciences, but to see that science does not produce the penultimate truth. It produces, alters, falsifies, changes THEORIES. Not more, not less.

e=mc2 means that an object grows in mass the closer it gets to lightspeed, until it's mass is infinite when having reached lightspeed, which has two consequences: infinite mass needs infinte energy to be moved, and infinite mass is only possible in a universe that is considered to be infinite in diemnsion as well. That means it is not the object but the whole universe moving at lightspeed (which is not possible if the universe is infinite, becasue in what space or dimension does it move when itself is infinite). So I understand perfectly why it is said and thought lightspeed cannot be reached. but it is a theory nevertheless, born from three-dimensionsl logic and man-made reason. that we cannot imagine it any better CURRENTLY does not chnage the fact. You said it yourself somewhere above: "as long as we do not become a beam of light ourselves". There you already have produced an imagination of working around. Others would say to move into another dimension to travel in zero time inside our own dimension/universe (the Warp-bubbles in Star Trek are such an approach). You could even add the manipulation of this universe's rules and structure to the list of possible workarounds. All this are working hypothesis. they are given thought, and the better our technology becomes, the more we will be able to test them.

What is light? you can prove me that it is particle, and I would be unable to defeat your theory and evidence - you are right. But I can prove you that it is a wave, and you are unable to defeat this theory as well, becasue I can give evidence as well. It depends on the observer, and his approach. That's why today we say that light has a dual nature, and is either particle or wave, depending on the observer. It may be both at the same time, or it may switch between both states depending on oyur way to look at it - we don't know.

That should be a warning about seeing theories as a penultimate truth.

Steven Hawking repeatedly had corrected former theories of him. That said, consider that the difference between energy and matter is not really solid. Matter is energy, energy is matter, both can shift into the other state, can be transformed. Geologists also can tell you, from a much more profane view. Nothing ever gets lost, it only gets transformed. Atoms are mostly empty space, and what remains in subnuclear particles - again is only empty space. They do not talk of siolid matter there, but of probability clouds for tendencies to exist or not to exist. What concpetion is that to make sense of a "solid" interpretation of matter being something "real", "solid", "massive"? The deeper you look into the universe with telescope, the ore you travel back into time. You do not see what is there - you see what once, long time ago, was there. Long time ago? What is time? Some people would tell you our conept of time is wrong, that there is no time indeed. I tend to be in that camp, for non-scientific reasons. Time is a function of the activity of our consiciousness. Wjhat is our consciousness? Empty space, filled with many potentials. You may wonder what all this has to do with lightspeed. I try to widen your mind a bit, with fanatsy and imignation. Einstein said: "more important than knowledge is imagination". Newton said something like "I felt like a little kid, playing with stones at the beach". It is visions that lead us further, not the status quo. We need to play around with things, to invent new approaches, see new possible alternatives. I do not think, for example, that astronomy ever is a complete approach on space, as long as it does not include our "inner space" as well. That is why I think the opening sequence of "Contact" is such a beautiful and powerful vision - all universe in the little girl's eye:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLQF-4uyD4Y

In the end, space travel and inner space travel may be less far apart than most sane people today will dare to imagine.

It's no theory anymore, it's a fact. Space is space. It's a vacuum all over and that's that. The universe IS space. Space is what holds what we call the universe: our planets, stars, etc. EVERYTHING THAT MAKES UP REALITY is in the universe and henceforth in space.

Putting aside that statement of fact (rather jumbled, though it might be), you still haven't answered my question: how are we going to move faster than light (299,792,458 meters per second)? I'm going to be honest with you when I say you're ignoring rationality and you obviously can't separate science fiction from science fact.

What's so funny about theories, though, is how their name is often kept the same, but it's been proven to be fact, and they're no longer theories. Evolution, for instance, is a great example. In 2003 a German dentist from Hamburg had 5 DNA tests to confirm whether or not he was related to a 8,000-year old caveman.

All 5 tests came back conclusively as a "YES", but for some reason it's still called Darwin's THEORY of Evolution. Why? Why not a fact? It's been proven that this man came from a primitive human. Why can't we just accept the facts? Finches, for instance, in the Galapagos. Evolution is seen there all the time in them. Their beaks have increased in size and sharpness, for instance, over the past 26 years. That's a fact. This "theory" is a fact.

Now, the evolution deal is what's going on with these Evangelicals. In your case, Skybird, you're just ignoring what's been presented as fact whilst focusing on the world "theory". Humans cannot move at light speed. Fact (we need protective gear AND we would break to pieces anyway). Machines we have cannot move at light speed. Fact (once again, break to pieces). The only thing fast as light IS light. Fact (light is what gives us everything we see, and there's nothing beyond light; hell, color is the partial product of light). That's that and that's how it works in the universe.

Funny how facts can defeat your warnings.

As I've said, we go at light speed in a machine, it breaks up before it even comes close to reaching it and we die quick but horrible deaths. We go at light speed as a human, we break to pieces and die before we even get close to the speed of sound. Light's the ultimate truth to the universe. IT is what allows us to see what is around us, yet it is the most mysterious product of the universe. My point: NOTHING, not even a planet, could travel at 299,792,485 meters PER SECOND. It would break to pieces at an early point, and that's just what would happen with what your theory is saying.

Let me quote to you from a little man who was a liquor salesman and manufacturer. Mr. Tommy Dewar once said, "Minds are like parachutes: they only function when they're open." I've got an open mind towards your statements (in the case of there being another universe), but be rational and open in my statements about OUR universe (if there are indeed others). Light speed for humans is impossible and it would be fatal if you tried it.

In science fiction, space travel and inner space travel are less far apart. In reality, it's a long way. And "than sane people dare to imagine"? Please, Mr. Lovecraft, spare us another speech in things that make for good reading material in magazines and children's books. Funny how you say that, yet for some reason the scientists are able to look outside of Earth's microscopic corner of the universe into what our galaxy looks like and what others might look like without going mad.:rotfl:

[Zacho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light


Apparent FTL


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warp_drive_%28Star_Trek%29#Is_a_nonfictional_warp_ drive_possible.3F

it merely creates a small "bubble" of normal space time

[Skybird]

Okay, i leave you to your facts then. Don't feel offended please if others try to go beyond your facts nevertheless - and eventually may be successful here and there. My life and the things surrounding me and from which I benefit - are factual evidence for the many occasions when previous theories saying that something is absolutely impossible - were made possible nevertheless. And that is more attractive a vision, than you insisting that because the wise man claimed "facts", things cannot be done.

Strange that I get accused to be a pessimist so often. It seems I am far more optimistic than some others.

Oh, and your clever question: how to accelerate you to lightspeed. Well, I do not know. I also do not know how to maintain a car's motor. Nevertheless the thing is running if I sit in it and turn the key. that I do not know something - does not mean that not one day somebody else nevertheless will know, were we did not. And if you look at it, you see that it never was different in history. We call it scientific progress. Today we can bend lightbeams, not by using reflectors to throw it around, but bedning the beam itself. We can experimentally alter the ways photons are moving. It is new and experimental technology. Just 30 years ago some people said that it is a fact that only gravity can alter the path of photon travelling. Fact...? Meanwhile, in austria they have transported matter - particles - from one location to the other in ZERO TIME, and without a travel of the particle taking place. was thought to be impossible just some years ago.

Be careful to declare the final, the penultimate fact. the universe is much bigger than what human mind can think about it currently. we are not in a position to declare the ultimate rules by which it is running, we even do not know if it's nature is a constant - all our figuring is only imaginiation on the basis of a handful of observations - we do not even know if we have observed the majority of details that are to be observed, or only a minor share of them. BTW, your fact that nothing can travel faster than light, already is defeated. Some particles do right that - they travel faster than light. Your fact has been a theory, and it already is proven wrong. ;)

And you want to indirectly say that we can define what the universe is, and what not, and what potentials it holds, and what not? You overestimate our knowledge, like just some generations ago they said that all stars revolve around little man's disc earth.

Maybe this is your motive? That you cannot bear the uncertainty of our existence in this cosmos, and that it is not yet up to us too know all about it and by that become the master of it all, in understanding it all? Just a guessing, and no attack meant.

But however.

[Letum]

That depends how tight your definitions are SB.

If your definition of "particle" does not include all the properties we could coherently
attribute to it, then logically it must be possible for there to be a concept that falls
under the description of "particle" and is faster than light.

If you define "particle" with all the properties we could coherently attribute to "particle"
then that definition would include it's inability to pass the speed of light.
This would mean that we could no more find a particle that is faster than light in
the universe then we could find a triangle with 4 sides.

If the definition is lose then it becomes difficult to attribute any properties to
definitions because we might find a exception.

If the definition is tight, then it is liable to be constantly destroyed with each small
change or new discovery.

The alternative science uses is to make definitions partly subjective. This is
practical, but logically wobbly.

The point of me elaborating upon this is thus:

Assuming that you do not defintivly know of any FTL particle, the possibility of one,
depends on how tight your definition of "particle" is.
In the same way, the answer to: "can a bear with the body of a goose and the head of
a cow exist?" depends how tight your definition of "bear" is.

Please not that when I say "particle", this could be interchanged with almost
anything; matter, substance, energy or even the entire content of the universe or
any one part of it.

[Skybird]

I make it easy for me and do not refer to my definition, but theirs. ;) And beyond a certain level of miniaturization, scientists measure the mass of a particles not in mass weights and volumes, but energy-quantities. I said somewehre above that one should not differ between mass and matter too dogmatically.

From other details in quantum physics we also should take into account, that not only is matter and energy not that totally different than traditonally science has thoight, but that mind also must be taken into account - and I personally assume it also cannot be kept strictly apart from matter and energy.

They said that one should not conclude from their experiment that Enterprise's transporters are lurking 20 years in the future. It will be much longer to reach there - if we ever reach there. In principle they have proven that particle mass can be send from here to there without travelling, and in total zero time. That is the message at this stage of the quest.

but science is just this: only rarely a revolution, but often a chain of many small steps.

One restriction I must add and admit: SLP (superluminal particles) are a consequences of Einstein's special theory of relativity. so their ixistence is not hard-facted proven, but an implication of einstein'S theory. String theory also heavily includes such particles. So, either Einstein's theory and it's mathematical representation is right, than there also must be such particles, or such particles cannpot exist, then einstein's theory and it's mathematical expression has flaws. But you can't have both demands: special relativity WITHOUT SLPs.

[Letum]

I make it easy for me and do not refer to my definition, but theirs

I think we have a problem with the definition of "definition" here. :doh:

[SUBMAN1]

This thread is going to pass the bump thread at this rate. That is as long as some people keep their blinders on. I think Skybirds martial arts guys idea of clearing ones mind of reality might help such persons here.

E=MC2 is a theory, and a pretty good one, but by no means is the end all of end all's.

A theory is simply a proven hypothosis and it will stand until such day that it is proven otherwise, which of course, happens frequently in the scientific world. In the end, it is still simply an 'assumption' and in the end, it will probably be proven wrong, or revised. It is not absolute.

Ever heard of an anomoly?

Anyway, some light reading that may drop the hammer on E=MC2 and the speed of light: http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.physics/2006-09/msg00614.pdf

-S

PS. I forgot to mention that the rotation of some galaxies cannot be explained by E=MC2. E=MC2 does have a few holes.

[Iceman]

Good grief Stealth Hunter....here's the scientists....gotta love you tube. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X02WMNoHSm8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q


Heres what you are talking about stealth but ....it is assumed by man life only exsits in flesh form...it does not...God is a spirit....God is not bound by time nor are those who cross over....alas the speed of light is not some mystically thing to Christians as it is prophcied that "Time" will end....but life does not...the veil will lift and eyes will see.

hence if God moves at or faster than the speed of light man is foolish to assume that the universe was created in mans seven days...God is not man...nor bound by this worlds rules.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ6N85lNgHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rocNtnD-yI good stuff...


Any Thing....and All Things ARE Possible.

[Skybird]

"God moving" implies that there are areas in space where he is not. Can God create a universe that is so huge that he cannot cover it?

:hmm:

[Letum]

"God moving" implies that there are areas in space where he is not. Can God create a universe that is so huge that he cannot cover it?

:hmm:

Does water not fill the Atlantic to the brim, but still move around? ;)

Although, if he moved as water did, that would make him divisible.

It is at this point that most theologians resort to a impossible paradox to explain the
logic problem. Something like "god can be both everywhere and in just one place at the same time".

Whilst this might sound profound at first reading, with any thought it is clearly jibberish.