faith based science?

Re-reading this, I see that you do not actually have any friends or relatives in your life that you could show your posts to.
This explains how you have managed to drift into madness, with no-one to help you realise.You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem. This is a step in the right direction.
It appears from this post that you might possibly realise that there is a gap between you and reality.You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No is no good. You need to back it up with reasoning.
How many? Twenty three. Silly obstinate Panda's Thumby.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

There might be a gap but it is not as great as the gap those who believe that the whole of existence could be possibly squeezed into a pea have. That kind of an abyss only collective madness can put between you and reality.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

What is the quantity of positive integers that exist?You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

That explains the cat fascination.

That is self-referential, silly. Each integer expresses a quantity. So you are asking what is the quantity of quantities.

All your insinuations are irrelevant. The cat may be a brain in a vat or a rat on a mat. Irrelevant. None of that is going to save your bigbangist faith from rational scrutiny and make it less idiotic upon examination.

No, I am asking how many positive integers there are.
It is not my fault if you cannot answer without facing your own delusions.You cannot be helped until you admit that you have a problem.

Actually, we all live on a planet that is orbiting the Sun in a corner of the Milky Way galaxy. I actually do have faith in some things. The Big Bang is not one of them. I've come to accept that explanation through the examination of evidence. Faith is for when I don't have enough evidence. What is it about your beliefs that makes you only want to destroy knowledge and never contribute to it? All you ever do is try to discredit things that we do know, but you never actually add to anything. For example, in Message 36 you wrote:

quote:

---

It is by definition physically impossible to exist as a wave and a tennis ball at once. Waves require medium necessarily. Wave is a moving shape of that medium. Therefore, the description is a metaphor and could be well replaced with other more concrete description better reflecting the physical attributes and architecture of the phenomenon of radiation.

---

You say that the definition is a problem, and that a better definition would be better. Well no shit. But you don't offer anything that would be better. Your content just covincing yourself that there is a problem.So allow me to speculate here on why you do this: The Big Band and Evolution are incompatible with your religious beliefs so instead of modifying your religious beliefs to fit within the new evidence, you discount the evidence so you can maintain your beliefs. Is that close? How religious are you?ABE: Oh, yeah: A photon isn't like a tennis ball.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

Irrelevant. You insinuate the integers are infinite according to your garbled sets ideas. Count sheep instead, silly. Integers start with 1 killing the infinity in the bud. What they physically represent could be extended in the other direction. Infinite means without border, end or limit. If you start counting, that is a limit already. Never reached to be expressed with a number. Counting could be assumed to be incessant. That's all.

Irrelevant, Vatican. What evidence is that you examined? The same as for Jesus walking on water? All you've got is authority to parrot, my friend. Face it.
Big bang is incompatible with the necessity, relativity and the rest of good sense. That's all.
Gaede's ropes is a good idea that could have replaced waves and particles. It's like giving physical architecture to Mach's principle. You are too brainwashed to consider that or something similar. You are happy with what you've got. Evolution is a local phenomenon. It's obvious. Change over time. It's abiogenesis that is in serious doubt, not evolution. The mechanism is likely to be not what you imagine.
Anyway try this. He is anti-relativist every relativist needs to read.
index

All:

Please keep on topic. Please desist from insulting or otherwise disrespecting members. The warning that I gave in Message 25 now applies to everyone. Get this thread back to discussing elements of origins that one has to take on faith (though I'm happy with arguments along the lines of not taking anything on faith).Regardless of your personal feelings towards members, please please - be respectful in public.Dr A, please don't make any further posts like Message 43, Message 47, Message 48 and Message 50. They aren't contributing, and they are spammy.

Um, except for that one time that I did time travel back to the early universe and see it for myself (totally forgot my camera , I'm afraid that the way presenting evidence here works is basically parroting an authority.But anyways, regarding the evidence: there's Hubble's Law; where the glaxies that are farther away are more redshifted. That tells us the universe is expanding. Its not hard to imagine that if you rewinded time, then everything would be much closer together.On top of that we have the Cosmic Microwave Background Radion: That the early universe was near universal in temperature pretty much confirmed the Big Bang Theory.You didn't answer my other quesitons though: Why are you so intent on destroying this knowledge? What drives you to want to deny it? And why do you gotta be a jerk about it? You, sir, have totally delivered. I wasn't sure what to expect, but with your reputation that site is as batshit crazy as I should have expected it to be. Thank you for that.

But what is more strange is this --- A.M's crazy nonsense about time seems to be based on thinking that Einstein was right and then being pathetically wrong about what Einstein was right about. So why did A.M. link us to this site? All Maddenstein's delusions come back to his pitiful inability to understand Einstein. So why does he link us to a site that claims that Einstein was wrong about everything?It is possible, of course, that A.M. is just an enormous troll.

That's not good enough, Vatican. Very stale rumours and as evidence is even less tangentially circumstantial than what we've got for Jesus turning water into fishes.
Hubble himself was not so sure about any of that. He wrote about apparent receding motion and so on. He had no good explanation and was in no hurry to spew nonsense about expanding distances, demons accelerating the existence into nowhere, etc.
Bill Gaede is as rational as it gets. Just not devoid of a sense of humour. Read on. Don't be shy. You might learn a thing or two.