Total posts: 827
Posted in:
-->
@Undefeatable
Before I defeat you, I must learn the 200iq skill of not trying to prove the Earth to be flat, young or made of cheese. Once I learn that, I will have a chance.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The thing is, the new properties are only the large scale effects of the same old laws. And the laws only affect certain things because those things have properties. Salt doesn't harm you, because its new structure behaves differently when interacting with another object. "Harmlessness" is only a description of this new behaviour. It is this word that we regard as a "new" property, while actually, the only thing that changed is the structure of particles. The new structure interacts differently with objects. This is not due to it gaining a new physical "attribute" like mass, or spin. It is because the new structure, in contact with another object, sets off a different chain of physical interactions.
The same objects or particles, in a different structure, acts differently. This is apparent in for example Lego.
Calling it a new property...isn't wrong, but it certainly missed the point of the topic.
"I" being an experienced reality as opposed to blind atoms moving around is certainly a different category of "property" than the difference between chemical properties.
And no, I wasn't trying to prove the "soul", I still haven't made up my mind about which view I support.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
semantics had nothing to do with your claims
Well, actually, everything.
Our debate around "nothing" was basically just a semantical debate about what the word meant, and whether or not any given definition was self-contradictory.
Our debate around properties hinges on what a "property" means. If property means any function or attribute, then of course you were correct. However, if we define property as the rules by which a given object operates, then I would be correct. Don't call me out for a logical fallacy, hear me out: both the salt and the individual parts operate based on the same laws of physics, with the same "properties" of mass, energy, momentum and so forth. The way you used the word property, any new behaviour (like salt reacting in a harmful way or water molecules together being "wet") would qualify as being a new property. I would agree to that logic, but that was not what I mean when I made my argument. What I said was that a chemical reaction is just a rearrangement of protons, electrons and neutrons -- creating a new structure that behaves in new ways.
The behaviour of the whole is only "new" because the smaller parts interact in new ways -- with the same properties (electric charge, mass, inertia, colour, spin, etc).
I am sure you would agree that no new physical laws are created by the reaction between sodium and chloride -- the governing rules stay the same.
We only disagreed because we, in our different mindsets, couldn't fully understand what the other meant. There was a communication issue.
No, I am not creating an excuse, this is genuinely why we disagreed.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I did not commit a fallacy of composition. I committed a fallacy of division. From my source, it reads:
A fallacy of division[1] is an informal fallacy that occurs when one reasons that something that is true for a whole must also be true of all or some of its parts.The converse of this fallacy is called fallacy of composition, which arises when one fallaciously attributes a property of some part of a thing to the thing as a whole.
In my argument, I didn't say that the mind must have the same properties as its parts, but that its parts must have the same properties as the mind. This is a fallacy of division.
And no, I am not a dishonest interlocker. Just a noob.
I take everything I have said back, as it was based upon the wrong assumptions. My view was misrepresented by the words I wrote due to all of our semantical arguments.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you cannot come to any conclusions regarding nothing's nature - because it operates under laws which we cannot observe
I am afraid your semantical argument might actually be called a red herring, only to distract. You are basically saying that nothing cannot be studied, and therefore it COULD cause something. But the very definition of nothing shows that nothing is not something, but the absence of something. You are not taking into consideration that nothing is just a word, and it is exactly as we define it. There is no "nothing" that can cause things, just not be studied. Nothing is just a human concept.
Let us define nothing scholarly. This is how Merriam-Webster defines it:
Definition of nothing(Entry 1 of 4)1: not any thing : no thingleaves nothing to the imagination2: no part3: one of no interest, value, or consequencethey mean nothing to me
Nothing is the absence of interest, value and consequence. Whatever has a consequence cannot be called "nothing".
What you call nothing "operates under laws which we cannot observe". That is not actually nothing -- it is just the supernatural, which we can't even prove to exist.
stop your cherry-picking
I am not cherry-picking here. I literally searched for "electromagnetism" and sourced the first site I visited. As your own source affirmed, the word "electromagnetic force" is synonymous with the word "Lorentz force" in terms of meaning and usage. Both refer to the same force. I am not cherry-picking this time, I am not even picking.
You didn't create a syllogism - the part we were talking about is effectively your premise.
We were discussing a statement. In that discussion, which was a whole other branch than the other themes, there were no logical fallacies involved -- only examples and objections. HAD I put up a syllogism and tried to call my conclusion "logically proven", then your accusation of a logical fallacy would be justified. I didn't.
That is a non-sequitur - specifically because of the fallacy of composition
I did not commit a fallacy of composition. I implied that since something is true of the whole, that this is also true for some of its parts. Even if I made a logical fallacy, it still would not be a fallacy of composition, but a fallacy of division -- the exact opposite fallacy. A fallacy of composition would be to infer that since a part of the whole has a given attribute, the entire whole also has that attribute. I did not do that, I stated that properties cannot emerge from nothing. You then argued that properties can emerge from nothing, as exemplified by sodium chloride. In my rebuttals I went of-track, claiming that properties of a whole are always inherent in the constituent parts, a fallacy of division.
I admit that was a fallacy. I must formulate my statement as first intended.
I rephrase and emphasize: no property of a whole can emerge from properties not inhibited by its smaller parts
Instead of my previous formulation, this formulation is not forced me into defending a useless semantical argument over what a "new" property is. With this formulation, I accept the fact that harmlessness is a new property. However, it also puts words on a limitation of emergence. No property can emerge from nothing. Sodium chloride gets its new property harmlessness, but that "new" property isn't emerging from nothing -- it emerges from the physical properties of its smaller parts.
Nothing, having no consequence, can't be the reason for "I" emerging from non-"I".
Created:
-->
@Reece101
“I” is a relative term/concept to distinguish oneself from another. It emerges from self-identity.
You define "I" as "oneself as opposed to another". This is circular reasoning. "I" and myself is the same thing, you can't define one based on the other in this case. Furthermore, calling "I" only a concept is an understatement. By definition, our concepts don't exist unless we exist. Therefore, "I" made concepts, and is not a product of them. If "I" don't exist independently of concepts then concepts can't exist.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Whether alone, or with other people, I get to survive, and I get to live
Are you able to hunt down prey with your bare hands? Are you able to treat wounds without getting infected -- using only leaves and alike? Are you able to defend against a bear or a mother moose? Can you deal with hard weather all year long? Do you know how to keep your sanity in lack of social interaction? Even if you had all this knowledge, your body still isn't trained to survive. Unless you already live in the wilderness, the wilderness will kill you. Of course, your knowledge make you far more likely to survive long enough for returning to civilisation, but you cannot live a full life in the wilderness. Even if you could, insanity would hit you hard.
If my money becomes worthless, I am prepared to accept that
Untill society collapses and criminals gang up on you to steal your food and water, that is. It isn't just money, everything you have depend on laws to remain yours for use.
The sign of true wealth is how you deal with its lack
Excactly. Your preparation for lack of wealth is a direct result of your wealth. If society had no success, then your initial success would not have occured. Thus your indepence of society, if it exists, was only possible because society existed.
my personal need of it is quite minimal
Except everything you have exists because the government exists. Without a government, society would collapse into anarchy, making impossible your success by education.
it will bury us, just like in every other country that embraces it
The argument of it causing socialism, taxation and economic collapse is an argument that I respect. However, I do not support the current policies in the US, just the very idea of universal free healthcare. In Norway, everyone is taxed, and everyone gets free healthcare. Norway is still amongst the richest AND most healthy nations on Earth. The difference between Norway and US is that US is larger and more complex -- making it impossible to easilly implement policies in US simply because they worked for Norway.
I pay taxes. Does that not help society prosper?
IF paying taxes helps society prosper, and the long term success of society (as opposed to wilderness survival) is what brought you your wealth, THEN you should pay taxes
Yes, paying taxes helps society prosper. The same would be true if taxes paid for your healthcare.
I understand how unique you are with regards
I donate 20% of my financial increase to charity
Respect +
If universal free healthcare was a charity organization, would it be wrong for the government to spend some percent of their income (taxes) on charity?
The government already DOES pay money to charity, is that wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Omniscience isn't incoherent. Your argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Additionally, the very idea of a God 2 that isn't fully omniscient is absurd. The very definition of GOD includes omniscience. If God 2 doesn't have that, he is only A god, not God2.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I did not say God 2 was all knowing
Well, then he is not truly a copy of God.
he’s all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble.
This bubble includes God 2. Does God 2 know whether he is created or eternal? If not, then he isn't all knowing with regards to anything in his bubble.
God 2 can't solve solipsism, similarly to a human. However, the concept of GOD as all-knowing still solves solipsism. Whether or not our "god" is God or God 2 is irrelevant as long as there is a GOD. The "real" God is all-knowing with regards to everything, and thus knows all possible bubbles, and that he is the actual God. Solipsism solved.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
there is a new property in table salt - its harmlessness
New property? Aren't the very quarks it consist of harmless?
Harmlessness? Not if travelling at Mach 3. The situation in which chemicals are dangerous vary, but all have situations in which they are harmful.
Harmlessness? Isn't that the absence of a property?
they have a new property of not being able to play in a team.
Again, you describe a lack of property, not a new property. Furthermore, a single-player also has the property of not being able to play as a team.
Your usage of the word property is missing the point. All "properties" you describe are actually just the behaviours in different situations of the same properties of matter. Salt is not assigned a new property, it's just that the existing properties react differently in different situations. Physicists can break down every property of objects and show that every single one of them is just a new expression of already existing physical properties in their smaller parts. (I recommend you watch PBS Space-Time or Scienceclick English)
You are simply making a fallacy, and as you are the one to make the assertion, you are the one to demonstrate that.
This is not a fallacy, but a physical reality. Demonstrating anything with regards to "everything" is not possible. However, I can prove it with regards to all of your examples.
the lesser extent of memory is an electron impulse
The lesser extent of which is the movement of molecules due to osmotic pressure, which only matters because of the electromagnetic force carried by photons.
the patterns of that impulse which are interpreted by complex chemical signals is what gives us our "Minds".
If that was true, then a smaller extent of "mind" exists in the atoms it consists of.
Other things might experience reality similar to a mind, just to a lesser extent.
That is the inevitable conclusion to your argument.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
there is no such thing as "electromagnetic forces"
OBJECTION: There is at least two. The electric force and the magnetic force. These all stem from one force, the electromagnetic force. "The electromagnetic force is one of the four fundamental forces." [energyeducation]. Electromagnetic energy? I didn't say that. I said "electromagnetic forces and energy" -- I said energy, not electromagnetic energy.
you are making a fallacy of composition
You can't treat my conclusion as a premise in order to call my argument a fallacy.
It's hilarious how you haven't realized that - applying that line of reasoning to nothing is something
It's hilarious how you keep accusing me of committing fallacies, even where I don't. Applying a line of reasoning does nothing to change the subject. Therefore, applying a line of reasoning to nothing is NOT self-defeating.
Nothing has no effects, no logic, nothing - that is what nothing is - the absence of everything -
Nothing is referring to NO-THING. If you refer to a thing able to cause or initialize any effect, you are not referring to nothing, but something.
Thus, nothing still can't cause anything. Which means, nothing still can't cause "I" to come from "non-I".
to try to arbitrarily assign properties to it such as having not being able to affect other things is to strip of it of being nothing - its a regress.
OBJECTION: This line of reasoning is a logical fallacy. You are basically saying: "the absence of properties is itself a property". This statement is logically contradictory.
Nothing is the absence of something. Only something can have an effect on something. Thus, nothing can't affect something.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
What if your father paid for your healthcare through property tax instead of direct payment? That worked for your education.
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Living in the wilderness is different from surviving in the wilderness. You don't get a life alone in the wilderness, and I doubt anyone who isn't an expert has a chance of even surviving the wilderness for more than a month. Furthermore, your knowledge of the wilderness was gathered by others. Had it not been for society paying for research and science, your 21st-century life would not be possible. You and your family would have been in the stone age if not for an organised society.
The money you and your father paid for your education is only worth anything because the government backs up its value. Without the government, money would not be worth anything, and you would need to trade item for item. Furthermore, the school system only works because society decided that people needed an education. In the middle ages, where none of these public goods existed, nobody could be a "self-made man", you were who you were born.
You have not been victim to an invasion, or life-threatening robbery. This is thanks to the police and the military. Since you are rich, you are the person most reliant on the functional police and protection of society. If law and order disappear, you will be the first target for thieves and other criminals. YOU NEED SOCIETY, you can't deny that.
What I am saying is: you are successful, but your success is reliant upon the success of society --- that is why you ought to help society prosper.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
For something called God 2 it must fullfill these criteria (according to you):
- Be omniscient (including knowledge of God)
- Be sealed from God (means having no knowledge of God)
According to the laws of logic, A=A. If something fulfils criteria one, it cannot at the same time fulfil criteria 2. Thus, God 2 cannot logically exist.
If you disregard the laws of logic to create your hypothetical God 2 then your argument isn't based on logic. Your argument against omniscience is not logical, it's illogical.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You are simply illiterate when it comes to chemistry, because new things emerging from complex reactions is quite literally how all chemistry works.
I am quite literate with regards to chemistry, and science. Your argument that sodium and chloride form something new is only valid if you look away from the fact that the properties in sodium chloride were already present in their parts. Elements are actually nothing but variations of atoms, with a different number of protons, neutrons and electrons. The "new" properties we observe in structures like molecules and salts are nothing but large scale effects of the same old electromagnetic forces and energy.
Do you have an example of nothing? Have you studied its properties?
Excellent rhetoric.
No, I don't have an example of nothing. The definition of nothing is the total absence of something -- which means nothing has no properties and can have no effect on anything. This in turn proves beyond reasonable doubt that IF what we call "nothing" can have an effect on anything, THEN it can no longer be called "nothing". Following this line of reasoning, there is not the slightest logical possibility of nothing causing anything. Thus, nothing can't be the cause of "I".
you can have new reactions from chemical reaction
My argument wasn't that chemical reactions can't create new chemicals. My argument was that no property can emerge from parts that lack said property. For example, crystals emerge from atoms like sodium and chloride. The properties of crystals like structure, mass and temperatures are all present in the individual atoms. The "new" properties are only visible from a distance, they are caused by the complexity of the object, not a creation of new properties. If you zoom into the crystal, you will see that the same interactions between elementary particles take place. It is only the complexity of the object that creates the appearance of new properties.
Neither the sodium chloride nor the brain inhibits a property not inhibited to a lesser extent in their individual parts. Change my mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
God CAN know that he is not God 2 -- because God 2 is logically contradictory. You can't use a logical contradiction to make any conclusions.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Byproducts are remnants of chemical reactions or the remaining materials left after the formation of new objects. "I" can't be a byproduct. I know that the brain is physical. However, the fancy words of biology and neurology basically mean chemistry. I guess that the brain stores information and uses that information to optimally control our bodies. But the experience itself can't be a "byproduct". The byproducts of the brain are molecules, heat, and various forms of energy.
Intelligent behaviour is an emergent feature of our brain. But the intelligence can be broken down into simple neurological reactions in our brain. Nothing can't emerge into something. Any emergent feature is only emerging because its core function exists on lower levels.
What feature of atoms or neurons is emerging to create something + byproduct "I"?
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
@Sum1hugme
I don't think any person is entitled to the product of another person's labor.
The patient is not entitled to the work of the doctor. The doctor is paid to work, he is voluntarily offering his services to society. This is true regardless of whether or not the paycheck is from a private business or the government. We already have "Universal Free Police Forces", but we don't see any moral issue with that. Some people pay more than others, but we all pay for these public services.
I believe in personal responsibility, not freeloading.
If you are one of those people with a good life, a lot of money and a healthy lifestyle - consider this:
- Who paid for your public education?
- Who protects you from criminals and invasions?
- Who assures you fair treatment in court?
- Who collected the knowledge needed to create your luxurious life in the 21st century?
- Who is going to help your children when you are gone?
Answer: society.
The self-made man is a myth. Without society, you are screwed, you'll die in the wilderness. You owe everything you have to society. You are successful only because society helped you all the way. The unlucky person is on drugs because society had forsaken him. He did not get the same education, or the same parents, or the same treatment by society. You have an unfair advantage, which made you successful. He didn't. By paying for another person's healthcare, you are contributing to the welfare of society -- the society you owe everything.
Paying a few of your own dollars to help an unlucky soul get free healthcare doesn't seem so unfair anymore, does it?
Created:
Posted in:
Despite putting a lot of time into my debates, I only have a 50% win rate.
Granted, I do accept absurd topics, but still... what should I learn to improve.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
@Mandrakel
God is smart enough NOT to do miracles when we have the technology to document it.
Wouldn't want mass conversion, would he?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have said that "I" is just an emergent feature of biology. I think you might be interested in this topic.
Created:
The brain is just a bunch of atoms moving around. But the same is true of any object. Humans feel like one being, we "are" one being. Yet we exchange our atoms all of the time. If our atoms just follow the laws of physics, we are nothing but a pattern in an endless universe. The world would make more scientific sense if only our physical bodies existed. Yet the exists something we call "I" that clearly experiences reality. I want to share my questions in search of productive discussion.
What is "I"? What experiences reality?
Please DON'T be angry if your view was misrepresented, I am only asking questions.
The supernatural "I"
- Does this thing "soul" exist? Which mechanics drive it and how would it be detectable?
- How does this "I" function, how does it connect to a brain as opposed to a rock?
- If this thing has structure, how is it any different from a physical "I"?
The physical "I"
- Is this "I" merely a product of atoms moving around?
- Do all atoms moving around create some form of "I", or does this only occur in our brains?
- How does this happen? New physical dimensions, quantum mechanics, maybe something else?
The nonexistent "I"
- If "I" doesn't exist, then why do I experience this thought process?
- If "I" doesn't exist, then a human is no better than a rock. How can one still support morality?
- What substitutes "I" in terms of function?
These questions sure are thought-provoking. If anyone has an opinion, please explain to me what "I" is and how you answer these questions regarding its nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
@fauxlaw
@Double_R
I have a solution.
Is God capable of creating the “bubble” I described?Is God capable of creating the being I described?Is God capable of concealing himself from this being?
OBJECTION: These three assumptions of yours are logically exclusive. If God 2 is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, then he can't be concealed or controlled by God.
Explanation:
You are working on the assumption that God can break the law of logic. You are working on the assumption that A =/= A, that God 2 is omniscient but still doesn't know God. You cannot possibly do this. If God 2 was truly an exact copy of God then he would just as much be in control of reality. If God 2 isn't a perfect copy of God then your argument doesn't change anything. God 2 being less powerful than God would ultimately make him no different from us humans in this philosophical debate. We can change our reality, even create our own realities (simulations) -- we could call ourselves God 2. But that destroys the point of your argument.
It isn't that God cannot create God 2. It is that your description of God 2 is logically contradictory, and thus describes nothing specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The conspiracy theory of a round-earth complot aside, we still have the problem of evidence. If we haven't travelled to space, which we obviously have, we wouldn't be able to decide what shape the Earth has. Even if we haven't been to space, that doesn't show us that the flat-earth model is better than the round-earth model. Science is all about models, and models are frequently proven wrong. What evidence does flat earth theory bring to the table, that should convince us of its validity? All images of a flat Earth are clearly photoshopped since flat-earthers haven't been to space. Why would we trust some random guys on the internet, or people in ancient times, to have a better model of the Earth than NASA? What phenomenon on the Earth does a flat-earth-model explain better than Einstein and Newton's model of a round earth?
More importantly, many features of the flat Earth model contradict conventional logic.
- Light moves in every direction at once, which means a flat Earth would always be illuminated, but the flat Earth model says the sun has "directed" light output.
- Gravity is explained by the flat Earth theory in two ways I am aware of:
- Gravity is pushing all things towards the middle of the Earth, and the further from the centre, the more tilted the Earth gets. This explanation is total BS, as this constant tilting of the ground would create a sphere. The only option for such a theory is that the surface of Earth is non-continuous. Also, if gravity existed in ANY form, the Earth would be round.
- Gravity does not exist, it is the Earth (and the celestial bodies) that accelerate upwards. This theory is also BS, as we would have come closer and closer to reach lightspeed, which would cause time-dilation and eventual freezing of time. Also, what force can be so absurdly strong as to accelerate an entire planet upwards, and what force can be so absurdly specific as to accelerate the Earth but not its inhabitants.
- The wall of ice preventing water from leaving the planet certainly cannot stop the Atmosphere from falling of the edge.
- The sun, being so close, would easily be seen above the clouds as much larger. But even from the perspective of an aeroplane, the sun is still rising and sinking
- Why does the sunrise and fall if is simply moving around the Eart?
All of these parts of the Flat Earth theory are clearly in defiance of normal physics, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to consider as a scientific possibility.
At best, the flat Earth theory is a theory of simulation. God(s), alien masters, or something similar are needed to even let a flat Earth be a possibility.
What evidence should convince scientists that the Earth is flat? Why, in the absence of such evidence, do people believe the Earth is flat?
How is it a conspiracy to not accept this flat out not Earth theory?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The force of gravity, as described by Newton, is this strong:
MassObject1^2multiplied byMassObject2^2divided byDistance^2
Mount Everest is not huge enough to have any effect on the mosquito, and the mosquito is not huge enough to be pulled towards the mountain.
However, on large scales Gravity coupled with fast movement can deform the Earth: https://study.com/academy/lesson/shape-of-the-earth-density-stress-gravity.html
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
An incorrect conspiracy theory is not evidence for anything.
Furthermore, rockets have been launched into space, to then fall into the ocean several days later. proof
This is a historic, not a scientific, fact. Nobody can deny this.
We know that things that go up fall down due to gravity. How on Earth did those rockets have enough fuel to hover over the Earth for several days?
Answer: they went high enough that gravity could not pull them down. At that height, it is realistic that they could take those pictures.
Also, they didn't have the technology to photoshop an image of the Earth, so why assume that the images are fake?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Who cares about who did what. We have real images, and real satellites in the atmosphere, and this is only possible if the Earth is round. Why would you reject this evidence?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Faked? Which evidence do you have to support that accusation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Specific images?
What about the moon landing: https://www.history.com/topics/space-exploration/moon-landing-1969
This happened in 1969, before photoshopping and advanced video editing was invented
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
To be called "secret" is an overexagoration.
Here is their main page: https://www.nasa.gov/
Not so much secrecy, they tell everyone about their main work
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You can probably make simple experiments to show that the Earth is flat. But your line of sight is limited, which makes it impossible for you to see the entire Earth at once.
You could also make simple experiments to show that objects are not made of atoms. But your line of sight is limited, your eyes are not good enough to find atoms.
If science finds out that our personal experiences don't reflect the true nature of reality, then we should accept their theories since their experiments are better than our own.
We have sent multiple spaceships high up, even over the atmosphere, and also satellites we can see from the Earth, and also the international space station (ISS).
These are all equipped with cameras and broadcasting equipment, sometimes even humans.
How do you interpret these images to say that the Earth is flat?
Created:
Posted in:
This is purely a discussion about the scientific method, and how we gather facts, not the facts themselves.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Time is nothing but measurement. What cannot be measured is eternity.
Merriam-webster-definitions
Measurement: to allot or apportion in measured amounts
Time can be measured, but there must be an underlying reality that is more than the measurement. I proposed that time is the rate of change in the universe, the rate at which measurable things, like the ticking of a clock, changes. You cannot measure time, you can just measure its effects --- that is why we call time "relative", because different objects react to time differently due to their speed. Time itself cannot be measured.
Eternity: infinite time
Infinite: subject to no limitation or external determination
Eternity is the sum of all instances of time, which would need to be infinite in order for eternity to exist. However, since the universe is expanding, it cannot be eternal.
BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%80%93Guth%E2%80%93Vilenkin_theorem]
Our universe cannot be eternal, this is a basic requirement for Einsteins theory to work. Heaven or something like that might possibly be eternal, but not our current universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I imagined time more like the rate of change -- the rate at which light moves forward. This model means that time is universal, but the effects of time are relative due to speed.
Eternity is nothing but a theoretical [box] in which all instances of time, every "frame" of the universe is stored at once. I am not sure whether or not that is a model or reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Rate, distance and duration are all measurable.
We cannot measure time. A watch takes some interaction and measures the rate of interactions like the mechanical watches slowly ticking.
The problem is that the rate of interaction measured by the watch is influenced by motion. "Time", which cannot be measured, is not slowing down - the rate of interaction is.
"time" is really just our experience of change -- change carried out by the photons.
That is why time and speed is connected:
- An object experiences time because photons bounce back and forth carrying "interaction".
- The rate of interaction is dependent on how fast photons can move between objects
- If the objects are in motion, the photons must traverse longer distances -- in other words, the rate of interaction slows down -- aka "time" slows down
- "Time" is relative because motion is relative. But the speed of light is constant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
JESUS BEING A HYPOCRITE
WTF. Never expected to hear that from a "true" Christian.
Hypocrisy#etymology: "Middle English ypocrisye, borrowed from Anglo-French ypocrisie, borrowed from Late Latin hypocrisis, ypocrisis, borrowed from Greek hypókrisis "playing a part on the stage, pretending to be something one is not," How did Jesus pretend to be someone he was not.
Jesus being a person acted in contradiction to His stated belief that He would return before the existing generation had passed away,
First off all, Jesus didn't "believe" that this was going to happen. He promised to do so: "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.". In other words, if Jesus didn't fulfil his statement, that means he would be lying. But God cannot lie. Jesus used a lot of symbolism: I am the light, I am the way and the truth and the life, etc. So why do you think that you can take this single verse and try to interpret it literally?
of which He did not because said generation has been gone approximately 2000 years and Jesus has yet to return in this generation!
Why not accept "generation" as a symbolism, like literally everything else Jesus said.
Obviously you do not understand simple math and logical deductions.
Incredible.
- God cannot lie
- Jesus lied (according to you)
Conclusion: Jesus was not God
Congratulations, you have undermined Christianity by applying over-the-top sketchy reasoning. Be proud of yourself, but know that no expert on theology agrees with you.
BTW, stop using personal attack. Or else I will need to report you, which will lead to you being thrown out of this RESPECTFULL forum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Scientists like to make science complicated.
Well isn't that why it is called science and not common sense?
I will make it simpler:
- We have the 3d space, on which, things that exist have a position.
- We have the speed of light, which determines the rate at which position can be changed.
- Everything moving slower than the speed of light experiences time because they are accelerated and interact with each other.
- Since all interactions happen at a maximum speed of C, the faster an object moves, the slower interactions can occur. This slows "time" down under high velocities
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Most of what you state is untrue.
OBJECTION: Give me a few examples
Relative to itself, a reference frame is at rest and experiences neither length contraction nor time dilation.
You know why? Because the clock that measures time is running slower. The reference frame experiences no slowing of time, because the experience of time is a product of time, aka the interactions within particles.
Space itself is shortened and time itself is slowed down for a moving reference frame
The truth is that a moving reference frame TRAVERSES space faster, which creates this effect of "space slowing down". Similarly, time slowing down is a result of speed -- the photons carrying "temporal" interactions have to traverse a longer distance, so "time slows down" because interactions (like a watch ticking) are slowed down.
REMEMBER -- WE HAVE NOT OBSERVED A "TIME DIMENSION SLOWING DOWN",
We have simply seen that a moving atomic watch is progressing slower than a stationary one
This effect can be explained by this model: ATOMS MOVING FASTER VIBRATE MORE SLOWLY, WHICH SLOWS DOWN PERCEIVED TIME.
The fact that we cannot travel backwards in time proves that the time dimension is inexplicably linked to the 3d universe and the speed of light.
In the model I presented, time is the rate of interactions, which makes it obvious that we cannot travel back in time without removing entropy and breaking Thermodynamics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Hypocrite: 1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrite]
Jesus using a symbolism that never actually happened doesn't make him a hypocrite.
And why do you keep name-calling me? I already repented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I confess. You are right. I have been mocking God and Christianity.
I retract all of my claims and comments.
I repent and ask God for forgiveness.
Can you forgive me and stop name-calling me now?
I want to start over, something you should let me do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
PROOF ALL OBJECTS HAVE A VELOCITY OF C:
As you listen to this lecture, sitting in your chair, you are moving at the speed oflight through spacetime.Again we find the particle’s speed through spacetime as equal to the speed of lighLikewise, objects in spacetime all move at constant speed c in spacetime but if youchange its direction, say by moving at speed v in the x direction, then spatial speed will changeand so will the speed along the ct direction. Again, its total speed will still be c throughspacetime.We all travel at exactly the speed of light through spacetime.
This is what I said:
There is a constant in nature, called C.C is the speed at which anything moves through spacetime.
This is evidently true, as my expert scientifical sources explain.
C is the speed of light constant. But it is the speed of everything constant as well.
Time breaks down at a spatial velocity of 100% of C. This is because there is no room for "time" velocity since all the velocity is used to traverse "space".
With regards to thermodynamics, what exactly is it that doesn't look the same backwards and forwards? The arrangement of energy? Doesn't all laws have this effect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
@Sum1hugme
@Theweakeredge
@Undefeatable
Science is complicated, isn't it.
Created:
Posted in:
A - defining velocity through spacetime
There is a constant in nature, called C.
C is the speed at which anything moves through spacetime.
As predicted by Einstein and confirmed by experiments:
- A stationary massive object moves 100% of C through time and doesn't experience movement.
- A photon moves 100% of C through space and doesn't experience time.
- Anything else lies between these two extremes
Total spacetime velocity = [speed through time]^2 + [speed through space]^2
If we chart this "function", we get a circle as a result. Since the radius of a circle is always the same, we see that velocity through space-time is always C. This explains why moving faster slows time, it's because you cannot move faster than C through space-time. Faster spacial velocity necessarily slows time-velocity. The extreme endpoint is a photon (or anything massless), which doesn't move through time at all. Conversely, it explains why a motionless object experiences time quicker. Afterall, if an object doesn't move then it must move 100% of it's C velocity through time. All of these predictions of treating C as the constant space-time velocity fit the predictions of Einstein as well as experiments.
CONCLUSION: C is the universal constant of speed. Nothing moves slower, nothing moves faster, all things move at C through space-time.
B - defining space
Space should be pretty straightforward. Space is simple to understand. Speed through space is to change your position.
C - defining time
Time has no definitive conclusions. Time is relative, it depends on the spatial velocity of an object. Why is that?
Solution 1: Say that time is a magical/unseeable dimension that alters our 3d space
Solution 2: Say that time is "the rate of interaction" in the universe
Solution 3: Unknown (at least to me)
I want to make a solid argument for the second one. Time = the rate of interaction. (Interaction is when to objects have an impact on each other. )
The fastest possible way to interact is to send a photon. A photon uses 100% of it's C velocity through space, and doesn't experience any time-delay.
Imagine two stationary objects, both moving 0% of C through space. This means that a signal photon sent from A to B is the fastest interaction possible.
[A] -----------------------------===>[B]
A and B are both having a velocity through time of 100% of C, as predicted by Einstein. According to this model, they do in fact have a rate of interaction off 100%, since there is no conceivable way for them to interact quicker. But what if A and B were in motion? Well, it's velocity through space would increase, and it would move slower through time. What happens in our experiment?
[A]----------------------===>----------[B]
[A]----------------------------------===>[B]
Excactly what you would expect. B is moving away from the incoming photon, which means that an interaction from A to B via the photon is slower. No matter how fast A moves, the photons hitting B move at the speed of light. However, if the photon is reflected back at A, it would move much faster. In the end, the total "slowing of time" in the system AB is really not that noticeable. This fits our experiments with atomic watches in orbit around earth.
However, what if we let object AB move at 90% the speed of light.
- Interaction A=>B will take 10 times as long
- Interaction B=> will take 0.52 times as long
- In total, each interaction will last more than 5 times longer
- AKA: it would move through time 5 times slower
In other words, when an object like AB is approaching lightspeed, it starts to interact very slowly.
And guess what Einstein said about high speed? Answer: that time would start getting very slowly.
Anything moving at the speed of light cannot accelerate any further since acceleration requires interaction.
Massive objects can never achieve C, because no matter how much energy you put into it, time will slow down exponentially. When your last photon is fired in order to accelerate your particle into lightspeed, it will take near infinite "time" for the photon to reach our particle. From the perspective of the particle though, time is moving so slowly that it just feels like a moment. Acording to Einstein, moving at C destroys time. This is exactly what this model explains.
CONLUSION:
Time is how fast objects interact, which depends on how fast photons can make them interact, which depends on the velocity of the objects that experience time.
The correlation between spacial C and time C is that the spacial C creates time C.
This explains why a simple particle moves at 100% spacial C, while only complex systems of interaction have mass and "temporal" velocity.
In fact, C's "rate of movement" might be the actual definition of time we are searching for.
The funny part is that this model explains how an objective value "C" is needed for there to be a relative value "time.
HOW TO LEARN MORE/ UNDERSTAND BETTER:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Give me 1 example of Jesus being a hypocrite. I'll wait.
Wisdom of Jesus? Well, you know that he is on to something when there is even a thing as Christian_atheism, that rejects God but follows Jesus's ethics and wisdom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
If you really want to "discuss" with me I demand a few things:
- Don't use name-calling on me (and shows respect in general.
- Stopp constantly claiming that I "run away" from your arguments. If you consider them unanswered then simply rephrase them into a new post
- We start a new forum topic and discuss civilised, without any accusations or personal attacks - we must stay topical
Unless you are willing to accept these rules, then I won't debate you. Neither in a forum nor a debate.
If you really think you can beat me, then accept those rules and we can start a new forum with some productive discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Congratulations. You have managed to scare away anyone that actually wanted to take part in your "real" Christianity.
With regards to post #30, don't you get that I AM ONLY JOKING! I already said so, and you are a fool if you believe that I am "running away" from your post.
Consider this conversation:
A: nice weather todayB: you fool, there is lightning and a tsunami and a tornado, how can you call the weather "good"A: I was only jokingB: You are "running away from my argument"A: What, no. You don't get it. I was only joking.B: Llook everyone, person A is a fool, and he doesn't even want to debate meETC
This is basically how you act, and this kind of behaviour is both rude, disrespectful and unbiblical.
How does your behaviour on this website fit with Christian doctrine? BADLY.
Philippians 2.3: Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Luke 14.3: But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place
1 Peter 3:15: make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet DO IT WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT,
BrotherDThomas, in his attempt to "convince" other people that he follows "all the rules of God", has indeed broken multiple. "The membership" can clearly see how recked you are, Brother. You have made unspeakable claims about how "godly" you are, but I have exposed your fallacy. You are no better than the ones you criticize, yet you claim to be better than them. This kind of arrogance is exactly that of those Jesus reprimanded [http://web.mit.edu/jywang/www/cef/Bible/NIV/NIV_Bible/MATT+23.html].
Mattew 23.11: For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
BrotherDThomas has exalted himself by showing exagerated arrogance and has been shown to be a hypocrite. The wisdom of Jesus sure exposes hypocrites even to this day.
Created: