Total posts: 4,363
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. An attempt to teach lawmakers of the state that they, not the governor of the state, and/or not the secretary of state of the state, legislate election law. Simple argument; simple solution. Keep you own panties on and don't try to get in somebody else's panties.
Not to mention that a state cannot treat its own citizens with disrespect, let alone the citizens of other states when all the citizens can expect that they equally have the equal protection of the law, including election law, regardless in which state they reside.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So, by definition, a tyrant is anyone who disagrees with you? Big crowd. Shame on us.
Created:
Posted in:
So, the other day, I happened to Google the question above, exactly as written above. Try it yourself. Was I surprised, or what? Who knew?
The first hit said "1 S Boston Ave, Tulsa, OK 74103" So, if you're from Tulsa, tell us how it feels being the center of everything.
Problem is, the address is not even the center of Tulsa. oh well, maybe the universe is off-center, too.
Yeah, I saw it, too. A map identifies some facility as "The Center of the Universe." Very cheeky.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
scientific theory is a collection of relevant facts.
No. the operative word is not collection, but contemplation. Entirely different words of differing meaning. Don't confuse them. Contemplation: a meditative practice in which a person seeks to pass beyond intellectual reasoning or reflection to a direct experience. IOW, a passage from the theoretical to the factual. We contemplate existing facts, as far as they are known, to explore the unknown until we can reason out the experience of transition from theory to additional fact to expand our knowledge.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
tu quequo
C'est à dire: tu quoque?
That I wouldn't know Utanity's native language depends entirely on examination of English word use, sequence, and, in some instances, spelling in 'not-Enlgish-but-exact-in-another-language in which I may have coincident fluency. I'll wager I can even guess a region, not just an entire country of origin. But that's between Utanity and I. Not giving away the store, because, after all, I could be wrong, and I'll admit the possibility.
Theory:
a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.
b. More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something.
Yes, asking for clarification by mocking is a bad thing. C'est très mauvais; ne faites pas.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
As does all scientific theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Masses of what?
It is probable that English is not Utanity's native tongue, yet you toy with porpoise? Utanity get's it, entirely [see Einstein, Theory of Relativity]. I understand Einstein was not a Brit, the seat of the English lexicon, and I do acknowledge the OED as the ultimate descriptive of that lexicon, and own it with pride, though being a lowly colonist, but I'll wager Utanity's grasp of our shared language separated by an ocean understands mass in sufficiently more detail than you understand it in Utanity's native tongue. Get off your high horse, Lord Nelson, and do some research on your own.
Utanity: Well played. Bravo.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
So, who placed those attributed at God's door?The bible.
So, who wrote the Bible? It was not God.
Worse, which book of the Bible is from an original manuscript, or even just two or three generations of transliteration and translation from a hint of an original manuscript? I believe the Bible to be the word of God, but I accept that there are lapses, mistakes. as well as deliberate changes. I don't just read, and I have in four languages, but I study and pray about it. Read James 1: 2 - 6, and the entire chapter of Hebrews 11. It's what one does to discern properly.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How is the concept of "organized" not left up to individual interpretation?
Simply by understanding what "organized" means, and not by leaving it up to individual interpretation. Organized [according to the OED]: a. transitive. To arrange into a structured whole; to systematize; to put into a state of order; to arrange in an orderly manner, put in a particular place or order, tidy.
One of the results of "organized" is to give purpose to what has been organized. It now has a specified [documented, if you will?] defined objective[s] to accomplish which cannot be accomplished without first "organizing."
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
calling [matter and energy] organized and disorganized is arbitrary.
Not at all. The debris orbiting about Saturn is disorganized [does not fulfill a purpose]. Saturn is organized.
The energy produced by black holes is disorganized [does not fulfill a purpose]. The energy produced by stars is organized.
shards landing in the shape of a glass sheet as "organized" is an arbitrary decision
That entirely depends on whether you had purpose. If you tossed the shards without a plan of accomplishment in mind, yes, it was arbitrary. But if the toss had in mind the purpose of a plate of glass of specified dimension, it was intentional. That is in keeping with the state of the of the shards being disorganized matter, made organized, or not.
God doesn't derive from your evidence that you exist.
Isn't that rather cheeky to deny God his own manner of derivation? Who are you to deny it? When you can stand toe-to-toe with God, then we'll talk. Until then, the greatest sin is to limit God. Don't.
unless that spirit is ultimately physical.
I understand that the nature of spirit is a difficult proof. I contend that it is energy, organized. Just as my body is organized matter. That both are "physical" [i.e. have properties of substance, even if, in spirit's case, it is refined as photons, as one of many possibilities, not seen but by their effect, is a necessary given in my construct..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
with those attributes in place, ID doesn't make sense.
So, who placed those attributed at God's door? Man? Not yet right for the part. There's a reason we're born without the ability to walk, or talk, let alone manage any representation of coordination and dexterity. It is a growth process; all in good time. Just as perfection is a growth process. To allow that God creates imperfect things that can, in time, become perfect is not a sleight against God, it is acceptation that to become like God, which is our potential [not compelled, but dependent on our recognition of the possibility, and then working toward that goal] was in the plan of creation all along. We have not learned enough, done enough, made enough mistakes, or demonstrated the capacity to be perfect, yet. "Yet" is the separation we impose on ourselves because it certainly is not an imposition of God. We will become perfect on our own timeline, if we are to accomplish it at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
DO NOT TALK ABOUT GNOSIS.
Who says? You? That's your limit; not mine. Freedom of speech, and all that. You certainly can muzzle yourself, and apparently do. Congratulations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
How can your knowledge be "without limits" unless you're OMNISCIENT?
Are we this unaware of how this works?
A boy has all the potential of becoming a man [more mature, more educated, more worth and earning potential - more of everything] that has not yet been fulfilled. But consider that just as potential is limitless, fulfillment, as well, is limitless. Just because all has not been fulfilled does not mean that the potential has suddenly been limited. One exception: you place the limits you, yourself, have.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Gnosis
semantics is little more than premature efactulation
OMNISCIENT HUMAN ON EARTH.
hardly. just been around the block a few more tours than you have. Not omniscient, just observant.
logiczombie
I'd say a logiczombie is mostly repetitious, expecting different results.
Nope, I apply faith and logic in equal doses; and they are clearly not the same thing. It's just that you're hung-up on an invalid expectation of what faith is, and clearly have no inclination to find out what it really is. It is so far from being belief in a rut which is your interpretation
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
That is true, by appearance, but, they are counterfeit's, not true miracles. Just sleight-of-hand. We need faith and proximity to the Holy Spirit to perceive the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
I continue to buy appl; have since 1984 on the introduction of the mac. I'm on my fifth mac, and currently have 4 iPads, 2 iPhones, a powerbook pro, and my original macintosh. "Hello." I used to work at Xerox PARC, in Palo Alto, CA, from whence came the team that developed the Apple Lisa, and from whose womb macintosh was born. When they left Xerox, I followed, because I believed in the simple principle of WYSIWYG [what you see is what you get]. When that team, still with Xerox, went to Stamford, CT [ then Xerox Corp HQ] to present their concept of WYSIWYG with a "mouse," Corp told them: "But, we make copiers." Idiots.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Thank you.
Miracles are distinctly evidence of God because miracles follow expressed faith; they do not cause it. Witness the number of people [5,000 is the count, but not including women and children] fed on two fish and five loaves, who ate to their fill and there were leftovers filling 12 baskets. Yet, filled for their bellies' sake, they were held in their sanhedrin hold and had no room for eternity. "This is an hard word" they said of the following sermon on the bread of life, "who can hear it?" Most walked away, unimpressed by the miracle, though they, themselves, participate in it. Probably did not even bother to offer gratitude for a free meal.
I like your mention of evil. Yes, there must be opposition in all things.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
melenium.
Try spelling that. Saying it isn't sufficient, I don't care how many repeats you give it. Millennium.
have to of
You're kidding, right? Try sticking to alpha ciphers. Adding numbers has addled the brain. That's "had to have." Come on, man, but not even that is correct; it's passive voice. Stay in the present.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
THE PHANERON.
from Greek φανερός phaneros "visible, showable". In other words, not even using the other alleged limit of four senses. Key word: LIMITED. And that's supposed to lead to knowledge in it complete form? I'll engage my laugh machine.
So, argue for your limitations; they'er yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
FAITH is not a "sense".
I reject you supposed definition. I'll offer you one from the only English dictionary I'll trust; the OED, unabridged: "the capacity to spiritually apprehend divine truths, or realities beyond the limits of perception or of logical proof, viewed either as a faculty of the human soul, or as the result of divine illumination."
I'll repeat, because it is critical: I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
epistemological limits.
What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known. Known by all senses available to us, and not just five [that's self-limiting, you know. What purpose has knowledge if we cannot eventually know all of it, which is endless, but so can we be endless. No limits, my friend. Try it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
epistemological limits.
What might those be? Who says there are limits to what can be known. Known by all senses available to us, and not just five [that's self-limiting, you know. What purpose has knowledge if wer cannot eventually know all of it, which is endless, but so can we be endless. No limits, my friend. Try it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I'll give you one I know you to which youi have opposition, but I'll wager it has never been tried. Try it, honestly, completely, and without doubt. Faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
In both cases, my friend, the child is the innocent victim. There are options in both cases. Some are hard, and they are supposed to be hard. No one said this should be easy. Yes, I have compassion for the unadopted. I have, in fact, participated in that effort, so I know of what I speak. You?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
you didn't justify the assertion that the consequences are not accidental.
Third to last paragraph of my #7:
"So, even though we are first created as mortal beings that will die, the design is perfect and is ultimately perfected in reality."
It's admittedly a future justification; however, there is precedent. Several, actually: Jesus, appearing transfigured, along with Moses and Elias [Elijah], to Peter, James, and John [Matthew 17: 1 -8], but also, Book of Mormon, Ether 3: 1 - 17, and Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History 1: 11 - 17.
Created:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Me, too, but it did not speak to me. You?
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
It seems like you assume God
That's not the flow of my logic. I assume me [with some valid evidence applied], and conclude God [concluded by the same evidence].
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
how do you differentiate the spirit from the body?
The same way energy differs from matter. They do have different properties, but both are eternal, but exist as either organized [created] or disorganized [chaos].
And just so you understand my view of the separation between divine [God] and ordinary human [you and me, and all of us], it is simply that if you throw a rock at a sheet of glass, and it shatters into pieces exactly as you have previously designed, then you are further on the path of perfection [and approaching divinity] than your were before [yesterday, last week, month, year, decade, etc], except that unless there is a recognized pattern to your distribution of pieces of glass, then your design is random and not purposed. A better understanding of organized [created] as opposed to disorganized [chaos] might be to take a collection of shattered glass shards, toss them, and have them arrange as a complete, one piece sheet of organized dimension without a piece out of place, and even visually apparent as a single piece of glass and not a correctly arranged puzzle of separate pieces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Every abortion saves an embryo or fetus from a difficult, painful, unfulfilled life as a human.
Every one of them? Don't be obtuse. That's like saying every time I stub my toe, I should cut it off so it doesn't hurt when I do it again. You're kidding, yeah? That is as heartless as anything you have said so far. That's supposed to be compassionate to all living things? Pardon me while I set-up my perpetual laughing machine
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
i had not necessarily included them, but, why not? All I'm saying is that limiting our perception of reality to 5 senses is nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
>> Stephen
there were only four humans on the planet at the time
You 'know' this only because that is the apparent population by what can be read. As Mark Twain once said: ""It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you knw for sure that just ain't so." You will notice that Cain is not noted as Eve's firstborn, just the first mentioned, because his actions are noteworthy; just as Abel is mentioned second, but not necessarily #2. If you read the Holy Bible as a complete body of literature, or holy writ if you're so inclined [you obviously have not in either case], you would note there's a fairly consistent propensity to mention male births, but not female, unless the latter become significant contributors to the entire history. So let's not get too hyped in numbering Eve's children.
Knowing the history of what we now hold as the Holy Bible, it is folly to read it as if it is an carefully constructed encyclopedia of historic events. Too much translation and transliteration, both with intended and unintended corruption of the text, and lacking any single book in its original script, taking anything as literal without having the back-up of asking God specifically what is and is not legitimate makes for interesting literature, but as for holy writ, that requires asking questions to the Source, but only by having faith that answers are forthcoming, and that only after much study and prayer. Most people lack that effort.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
You did not anticipate my #7, did you? It's not exactly biblical, though it does have inference from it.
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I exist, therefore, so does God.
God could have created perfect living organisms from the perspective that they would never die. As it is even now, with imperfection resulting in eventual death, a single human cell containing that species' intended 46 chromosomes [in other words, not a gamete of either sex] pick one at random] has no reason why it should die. It is a nearly perfect organism which, capable of being fed proper ingredients aligned to its best condition of survival, has no biological reason to die, yet it does. It does only because the complete human organism makes poor choices in consumption of food to feed each cell, which can cause breakdown of that cell - mutation - thus rendering death.
The idea that God is omnipotent is incorrectly construed that he MUST act omnipotently. That s, in this case, create all tings to be as perfect and immortal as they will ever be. In fact, however, the state of our creation is that, while currently mortal, and, therefore, we will all die, eventually, the design is prepared such that there is means for us to resurrect from death as a perfect, immortal being that will never die again. All living things were created as spirits, first, and then became physical, but mortal beings by birth. Read Genesis very, very carefully, word by word, verse by verse. Stop and ponder what you read. You read of two creation events. Though not clearly, by the words, tod that the first is spiritual, and the second physical, that is what you're reading. There are two separate creative events. That is clear.
I contend that the "spirit" - and all things have them - is a construct of organized energy ["created" from chaos to organized]; that is, according to Clausius [the first law of thermodynamics] eternal; it cannot be created from nothing. Einstein's E = MC^2 reinforces the principle. The physical body is organized matter, the second "element" [besides energy] of the universe. That is also eternal, but is made from chaotic form to organized form. Therefore, two creative events, spiritual, and physical.
Thus, we are created as mortal beings of spirit and physical matter first, then die [the physical body and spirit body separate], then are resurrected [a re-unified, perfect spirit and physical body] never to be separated again. This is the same form God now has - a perfect spirit-and-physcial united body. So, even though we are first created as morta beings that will die, the design is perfect and is ultimately perfected in reality.
That consequence is not accidental, therefore it is intelligent design, and God exists even as we do, and we will become, eventually, like him.
Therefore, my simple answer is: I exist, therefore, so does God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
I find it just as impossible to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge that abortion kills more children annually than are not adopted, at a 6:1 rartio [they ARE human, and no other species, they are, from before conception, alive [the male and female gametes are alive, so life does not "begin" even at conception], and, therefore, by definition are PERSONS].
Your selective compassion is not realistic.
Congratulations for citing your stat., Should have done so in the first place. You'll notice I do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
unintelligent design.
The design was never intended to be perfect as first produced. Perfection is a process of continuous improvement, not perfectin at the outset. And death happens as part of that process. No one here gets out alive. And no one becomes perfect but by passage through challenges of mortality, which always yields death. Then comes the resurrection [of all living things, not just humans] and continuation on the road to perfection. All in the original, intelligent design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
According to the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr-8-508.pdf
3.75M births per year
According to HHS https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/statistics/adoption/
135K adoptions per year
You do not cite your source for 100k not adopted each year, but they are mostly in foster care. Yes, abuses occur
However, according to https://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/cwodatasite/
91% of children in foster care are placed in permanent homes [adoption] each year
Meanwhile, > 600k abortions occur each year. You've a 6:1 ration of unborn deaths each year to unadopted children.
Bleed somewhere else. You have a bigger problem with causing death to more children than have a 91% chance of a happy home by 6:1. Cry for the larger population that isn't a population at all. You seem to ignore them.
Yes, humanity is what it is, and will succumb to carnal pleasures. But then, in how many schools now teaching sex [and abortion] to grade school children are not being taught that there is a 100% successful contraception by not giving opportunity. to conceive in the first place by just keeping zippers zipped rather than popping pills and wearing a condom, both of which have failure rates? With the most successful method of teaching not taught, no wonder we're raising generations of sex-hungry and enabled kids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
prevent "geocentrism" style mistakes
wrong question. Is there inherent prevention in any definition of any word? No.
Zoiks.
If that is intended as an expression of surprise, it fails to leave an impression. Do you deny that we may have more senses at our disposal than five?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
This is of course part of the problem of evil.
Yes, because what is the rate of birth defects caused by careless parents with regard to causing those defects by poor consumption choices? ref. https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/prevention.html
Pre-existing conditions, including mostly poor consumption choices of parents are causing too many birth defects to ignore, specifically because they are preventable causes just by making better consumption choices by parents, whether they intend ed to be parents or not [the so-called sex-for-recreation crowd - and note a root of that particular word]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@AddledBrain
Regardless of your feelings, and that is what is at work here, sexual congress has consequences, and they do not stop at pregnancy. Have a care to understand that, and stop stopping at a bleeding heart. Your bleeding heart apparently, while complaining that I'm not considering the life of a child as a consequence, you seem to stop at having that bleeding heart when a choice is to abort. At least I favor keeping the life of a child if conceived.
Adoption is still an available option for an unwanted child who was the consequence of carelessness beforehand. And, before you present an argument that some children are never adopted, check the stats. That is a far lower stat than the number of wold-be children, for who you selectively bleed, than those who are aborted. So, who's course has te better feelings? Let's think about that before careless sex. Abstention is still the only 100% effective contraceptive out there. Period.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so what?
So, just to be clear, because you appear to still combat the point, people don't just walk into a fog and break the law. They choose to do it, even by claiming ignorance, which is not a legal excuse by the way.
Are you arguing that unless we can get 100% compliance that we shouldn't bother with laws?
Nope. You have not carefully read my commentary. I've said that our expectation should not be that by merely legislating law, we expect that the legislation, alone, solves the problem of people killing other people wth guns. Ban guns, we'll use knives. Ban knives, we'll use spoons. Ban spoons, we'll use thumbs. Ban those, my friend. You can try. I'm saying the ban-guns crowd is not thinking through the consequences of their myopic vision of a social solution.
By the way, on that theme of banning anything, I do not support the cry of universal ban of abortion, for exactly the same reason. Women are still going to seek abortion, but many for the wrong reason. Yes, there should be unacceptable reasons. What I'm saying is that a better course is to allow abortion in special circumstances, such as a qualified endangerment to the mother, but not on a whim of inconvenience. After all, with 99% cases of pregnancy, the woman willing engaged in sexual congress, and should bear the responsibility of consequence. "I don't want it," doesn't cut it. She wanted the sex, and should be responsible for that choice. Yes. CHOICE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
do lions have echo location?
You're kidding, right? No, lions may not have echo location [we just don't know], but the whiskers on all felines do have sensory purposes [more than one] beyond our nearly useless mustache, if we bother growing one, even by enhancing vision, [look it up] so don't be trimming your cat's whiskers, yeah?
What I'm saying, my friend, is that, in fact, some people do seem to have a rudimentary sense of earth's magnetic field, for example. Certainly not everyone, but does that mean that only a small percentage of humans have that sense, or is it latent in all of us, and we just need practice? Are you going to say that five senses is our limit, period?
Nonsense.
That advanced frontal cortex we have still needs sensory input; the more, the better, so it is exactly the point, and is far from weakness, regardless of you lazy attitude about it.
As I've said, repeatedly, argue for your limitations; they're yours. But, why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
More correctly:
A fact is a perception of reality.
A truth is a perception that matches reality.
This is because [one example] we must recall that science [empirical evidence, if you will; therefore fact] models reality, but seldom is reality.
Example: the classic demonstration model of the effect of a tsunami on beachfront property development is a rectangular, flat-sided steel tank with sides perpendicular to the floor. There is a miniature beach at one end, and a large paddle at the other to create tsunami waves which crash against the beach. I've been ion all five oceans. I've never seen one look like that, with flat sides and bottom and a paddle at one shoreline. So, it is not reality, and not even a very good model of same, but it seems to work. A true model would match the reality.
By this comparison, both fact and truth have basis in senses, but I don't limit senses to the tradition five humans have. There are more, but we are not well practiced in them. If we were, ewe would find science far more easy to demonstrate truth, and not just fact. For this reason, I find fact more malleable than truth
Sorry, I'll take truth long before fact by these demonstrations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It has little to no bearing on this conversation.
I mention it because you totally discount that there is a choice to break the law. IT IS AS A CHOICE. You may discount it as a assholes's choice, but even assholes have choices. Get it? You choose to ignore my argument. Proved my point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Your #52:
My argument is “a fact exists regardless of unknowns.”While fauxlaw argues that “unknowns must also apply.”
Facts exist among what is unknown, such as the fact that geocentrism is wrong, wrong, always was wrong, is wrong, ever will be wrong. Therefore, even if a fact is unknown, as it was anciently, that fact, as an unknown, was still a fact, and must, therefore, ultimately, apply, even when it is unknown. Which means we cannot always merely depend on what we are able to observe at any given point in history. We once believed geocentrism was correct, and even depended on it as fact. We discovered we were wrong. We once believed it was a fact that man cannot fly under his own power. We now know, given proper conditions, such as already being in the air, and with added equipment entirely within our power to control, a human can literally fly. It was always a fact, but it was unknown. Therefore, the unknown applies. How many more examples do you need?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
What is it about this that you do not get? Yes, there is a choice. One will comply with the law established, or one does not. I never said that consequences are not also included with choice, but there is definitively a choice. We are not compelled to obey the law. As such, being a matter of choice, the law does not overwhelm human behavior. So, any gun law you produce thinking you have just solved a simple problem with control of behavior will not necessarily control human behavior to break the law at all. I have never said anything different than that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
You did not introduce "ray," I did. It is a mathematic representation of what is finite; a thing with a beginning point extending to infinity in one direction, but not both. Therefore, as a conceptual whole, it is finite because it is truncated at one end.
Nor did you introduce "line;" I did. It is a mathematic representation of what is infinite; a thing without a beginning point extending to infinity in both directions. Therefore, as a conceptual whole, it is infinite because it has no beginning or end.
Therefore, you construct that finite is wholeness and infinite is not wholeness is totally flawed because there is no such thing as a finite line. By definition, that is descriptive of only a ray, which is not wholeness.
Your last comment of the universe being limited is, therefore, wrong, because the universe is infinite, in all directions, not only contained on a line, being only bi-directional. A galaxy is a limited thing, but the trillions [so far] of galaxies are all contained in the infinite space of the universe. The universe contains both finite and infinite space, both occupied and unoccupied space.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Your statement
Nope. Not my statement. I cited my source: https://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143
And not imaginary vision. One can observe the boiling process and the conversion of matter [a bubble] to energy, thus clinically observing the demonstrated Clausius' first law of thermodynamics in a closed system [a boiling pot of water]. If that's imaginary vision to you, your problems are greater than a jaded view of philosophy.
Created: