Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
142 online now:
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,136 Year: 4,782/14,102 Month: 380/707 Week: 111/197 Day: 0/55 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


(1)
Message 39 of 404 (643741)
12-11-2011 6:58 AM


It can't be good when someone attempting to discuss these issues needs to have really basic algebra explained to them.

I'm reminded of when I was doing my A Levels at school (the last two years of high school, for you tax dodging colonials). When we wrote essays the idea was to be descriptive (rather than analytical).

It was an exercise in showing the teacher that you had put the work in and covered the body of knowledge appropriately.

As I did social sciences this boiled down to some variation of "Dr X suggests that 'X, Y and Z' is true, however Professor Q challenges this idea by saying 'A, B and C' is true".

That shows teacher you have done your work to learn (but not necessarily understand) the various conflicting theories.

I would suggest that all this quoting people saying 'X, Y and Z' and debating what was said (as opposed to debating the evidence) is indication of an absence of analysis going on, in a couple of threads recently.

This can be done without actually understanding subject to any great degree.

Kind of like the difference between A Level essays and post grad essays. This thread is a good example, I think, of this issue.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 96 of 404 (643884)
12-12-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2011 1:09 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
This isn't about physics, this is about you feeling a belief of yours being threatened, and you want to keep that belief, so you're gonna attack it by pretending to talk about physics.

I would say it goes further than this. Pretty much every one of Designtheorist threads have been to defend her world view and to defend the logical fallacies made during said defence.

With all due humility I called this some time ago.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2011 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 98 of 404 (643886)
12-12-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 3:19 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
I've not seen any evidence contradicting the central point.

If you can't be taught by the likes of the good doctor Cavediver I fail to see how you could learn anything, here.

Sorry to be frank.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:19 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 197 of 404 (644935)
12-21-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by vimesey
12-21-2011 10:50 AM


Re: Parable
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee.

Full marks and welcome to EvC.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by vimesey, posted 12-21-2011 10:50 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:38 PM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 199 of 404 (644941)
12-21-2011 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:38 PM


Re: Designtheorist
Were I to use my powers for evil I would not be allowed back into the Avenger's mansion. I'd have to go hang with bloody Ant-Man

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:50 PM Larni has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 201 of 404 (644945)
12-21-2011 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by New Cat's Eye
12-21-2011 4:50 PM


Re: Designtheorist
If I was pushed I would say he is patriarchal and maybe running his own business (he is his own boss). If he has kids he mainly has girls.

He has a study which no one else really goes into. The dominant colour of his airy house is beach.

His car is old but lovingly maintained: in fact, I'm getting engineer vibes, but maybe more architectural, perhaps an artist? Not a grease monkey.

He also knows (or has known) somebody called Arthur, David or James. Christian is in there somewhere, too.

I'm guessing his name is Tom or Jon.

My powers grow weak....I must rest....

Edited by Larni, : Spellink

Edited by Larni, : Formatting


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 4:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-21-2011 5:47 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021