|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Goodbye
Hey Eta, I think it is obvious that we're talking to someone that is very much like desdamona. You can continue on if you want, but I would really hate it to see your blood pressure go off the roof. I want a live Eta here tomorrow, not a dead one. Take care.
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: I misspelled because my laptop keyboard sucks.
suaverider writes: Typical evolutionist talk IM smart your not so you cant understand why I'M right that's great.
I just noticed this particular sentence. Just an advice. Try not to be as arrogant. Not everyone knows as little as you. Here is something that can potentially open your mind a little bit more. (1) del * E = e/(permittivity constant) (2) del * B = 0 (3) del X E = -(partial derivitive of B)/ (partial derivitive of t) (4) del X B = (permiability)J + (permittivity)(permiability)[(partial derivitive of E)/(partial derivitive of t)] (1) is coulomb's Law and Gauss's Law. (2) shows there's no magnetic pole. (3) Faraday's Law. (4) Ampere's Law. I know that this is a little off topic, but I'm only trying to show suaverider that there are things more complicated than his oversimplified worldview. Real physicists don't just blow hot air out of their buttholes like you do. They actually work with equations like the ones I put above and come up with scientific theories/explanations that are based on the mathematical results. Then, someone comes along and put these explanations into words so that non-physics scientists could understand. THEN, a journalist comes along and grossly oversimplifies the explanations so that everyone else could understand. Based on what you've written so far, I have a feeling that you don't really understand the evidence and math behind what you are talking about, and neither are a lot of other people here. It's ok to discuss about it, but try to watch it. Eta is a real live physicist.
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 225 by suaverider, posted 08-27-2004 8:21 PM | | coffee_addict has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: sdfd
Guidosoft writes: but just because we haven't found any cause for things in QM doesn't mean that there isn't any. Even if all conclusions and all evidences show this and that it is world-wide accepted it very well may be false.
You are missing the damn point. Pure science is evidence driven. Right now, the evidence show us that there are things that happen without causes. It doesn't matter if one day we may find it false, it is still the case that, right now as far as we know based on the evidence that we currently have, there are things that happen without causes.
Math is a creation of man. It is concept. You cannot grab a 3 unless it is a physical image of a 3. If our understanding of QM is flawed then how is math going to help us. Didn't scientist have to create a special type of math to calculate this. New things that come may not be calculatable by this type of math.
What's your point? As far as we know, everything that can be objectively defined can be described by mathematical equations. And no, scientists didn't have to create a new kind of math. They just applied old concepts to new findings.
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 311 by Christian7, posted 08-28-2004 5:26 PM | | Christian7 has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: sdfd
GN writes: Every other time science has thought that something had no cause science turned out to be wrong. Before the 1800s science did not even know about micro-organisms and the germs that caused disease. They had other theories as to the cause of disease which now seem stupid to us. One of the Greek philosophers, I forget which one, thought that certain kinds of fish came into existence for no reason, because he could not see the microscopic eggs from which they hatched.
And what is wrong with that? It would be kind of silly to theorize about stuff that you can't see or know about, stuff like "germs" and such. Science at the time was doing its best and I applaud them for it. It's better than the traditional "shut up, don't ask, just know that goddunit."
My point is that science is once again assuming, in quantum mechanics, that since things appear to have no cause, they actually have no cause! Don't you think it would be more intellectually honest to say that "we don't know why quantum mechanics behaves this way" instead of saying "quantum mechanics behaves this way for no reason?"
Well, the vast majority of scientists out there would altimately use the phrase "we just don't don't know enough about it right now." However, it still doesn't do anything to the fact that as far as the evidence we have now, some things do appear to have no cause. Perhaps one day we may find that this very concept is absurd. Until then, we're doing the best we can. Added by edit: I apologize to those that are offended by the last sentence of my first paragraph there. If it makes you feel good "knowing" that goddunit is the best explanation, you go you. This message has been edited by Darth Mal, 09-14-2004 02:41 PM
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
Re: Ahem!
GN writes: guess it depends on how you define classical physics...
Could you please do us all a favor by defining your terms next time when you decide to make up your own definitions for the very wildly used terms before engaging in a dialogue such as this one?
The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
Message 349 of 414 (143524)
09-20-2004 11:02 PM
|
Reply to: Message 348 by sidelined
09-20-2004 10:55 PM
|
|
sidelined writes: You believe in God. What caused God?
Ok, I realize that this is very rocket like, but I have to say it. You are not going to get him to give you a coherent answer for the question. I've never seen any creationist give an answer for it. They usually just dodge the question or give an answer so nonsensical that nobody could understand what the hell it means.
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 348 by sidelined, posted 09-20-2004 10:55 PM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 350 by sidelined, posted 09-21-2004 12:52 AM | | coffee_addict has replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
|
|
Message 355 of 414 (143648)
09-21-2004 12:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 350 by sidelined
09-21-2004 12:52 AM
|
|
Hehehe. I told you so. 
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 350 by sidelined, posted 09-21-2004 12:52 AM | | sidelined has not replied |
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
GN writes: The one that says every effect must have a cause.
What the frog meant is that there is no such thing as law of causality. It's all in your head.
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
You need to take a logic class big time! Your arguments are so rediculous and unfounded, I'm amazed the frog has the patience to tell you the difference between "some" and "all" in argumentive logic. Here is an analogy to your argument. (1) Some guys don't like girls. (2) Therefore, all guys don't like girls. Going back to your argument: (1) Some effects have causes. (2) Therefore, all effects have causes. See anything wrong with this picture?
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 505 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: 03-29-2004
|
GN writes: If the law of causality has always held true in the past, why are you doubting it now?
Since you've made up a law to suit your need, I feel that it is my right to make up a law to suit mine. You are not sane because according to the law of General-Nazort-is-not-sane, you do not make any sense. Based on this law that I made up, none of what you say will ever be taken seriously by me. Geez, why do people feel like they can make up laws at their pleasure?
The Laminator
B ULLS HIT For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
|
™ Version 4.2