Can't CERN open Star Gate to hell?

[Speedwell]

What bait and switch? I have no idea what you mean? So you now see you weren't being truthful so you have to try to put some blame on me...par for the course.

1. I claimed that most creationists are in the US, that they were not very numerous in other countries.
2. You posted a poll which showed that a majority of persons in other countries believed in the special creation of man.
3. You posted no information whatever about how many people in other countries are creationists.
4. I posted information which did not show specifically how many creationists there are in other countries, but this information demonstrated an upper limit to the possible number of creationists, which is quite small.

So you posted no information at all about the number of creationists in other countries. I posted information about the upper limit of creationists in other countries. You accused me of being dishonest in my figures but you have posted none of your own. That is where the conversation stands.

There you go, then stop claiming it. Now I have to wonder if you actually found some stats that prove you wrong but you won't post them....and can you blame me? That's what your dishonest caused..

I found no such stats. You can't either.

 

[Strathos]

You do realize that creationists can belong to other religions besides Christianity, right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Maglev trains were created by people who think differently from you. What do you think antigravity is? Something that cancels out gravity, to suspend something in mid-air. And now we have a magnetic force, which cancels out the gravitational force.

Strictly speaking, it doesn't cancel out gravity, it resists or overcomes gravity. Gravity still acts on the objects, but the magnetic force is stronger - gravity is relatively extremely weak. Just standing up (or even sitting down) overcomes gravitational force using electromagnetic force. It's no big deal.

Antigravity would be really cancelling out gravity, i.e. preventing gravity from acting on an object.

Ironically created by superconductors, which defy a number of other physical laws as well.

We don't yet know how some high-temperature superconductors work, but that doesn't mean they defy physical laws. We once didn't know how low-temperature superconductors worked, but when it was worked out we found they were following existing physical laws in ways we hadn't previously seen.

We think we know everything about physics; what we can and cannot do.

That's true to a degree - although the physics of the everyday human-scale world is known, i.e. the protons, neutrons, and electrons that everyday matter is made of, and the electromagnetic and gravitational forces that influence them; we don't know all the possible ways they can interact, so there's still stuff to learn about that. But we do know a lot about what we can and can't do - it's limited by the possible interactions of the particles we're made of and the forces that influence them.

They thought they knew enough about building architecture back in Genesis to build a skyscraper to space.

You may be confusing the tower of Babel with a space elevator

Which you just posted using a personal communications device: something which on the original Star Trek was a figment of fiction.

Sure, but they did have radio and wires in those days - it was an engineering problem, not unknown physics.

 

[usexpat97]

Please specify, with appropriate citations, any one physical law that superconductors defy.

That all materials have electrical resistance. That current can flow indefinitely while consuming zero power. Perpetual motion. Will not be giving you citations.

Breaking news: ancient middle east civilisation lacks knowledge of physics and structural engineering

Clearly, your desire to be asinine is interfering with your ability to listen.

We ALL lack knowledge of physics and structural engineering. They thought they lived in "modern times" back then, too. Time to realize that 100 years from now they will be calling you unknowledgable, too. And they will be correct.

 

[usexpat97]

Antigravity would be really cancelling out gravity, i.e. preventing gravity from acting on an object.

Who said it had to work that way? Certainly not the people who made levitation happen.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is already a patent for antigravity technology.

There are patents for all kinds of stuff that doesn't work.

FTL is a reality in field theory.

Care to expand on that? FTL what? is that a theoretical reality? Which field theory?

People always say something is impossible... until it isn't, and they are forced to accept the new paradigm.

That doesn't mean you can just make up any old tosh and expect it to become the new paradigm. 'People always say something is possible... until it isn't, and they are forced to admit it's not the new paradigm.'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who said it had to work that way? Certainly not the people who made levitation happen.

If the idea is that anything that can overcome the force of gravity is 'antigravity', that would make everything outside of a black hole an example of 'antigravity', which makes the term effectively useless.

 

[usexpat97]

Sure, but they did have radio and wires in those days - it was an engineering problem, not unknown physics

Also not accurate. The physics of ultraviolet photolithography were unknown at the time: a necessary component for packing that much RFIC into something as small as a cell phone.

 

[usexpat97]

If the idea is that anything that can overcome the force of gravity is 'antigravity', that would make everything outside of a black hole an example of 'antigravity', which makes the term effectively useless.

When was the term ever useful?

We just want to launch spaceships that can float freely around without having to use propellant, do we not?

 

[Ophiolite]

That all materials have electrical resistance. That current can flow indefinitely while consuming zero power. Perpetual motion. Will not be giving you citations.

You still have not told me what physical laws this breaks. Here is a hint: it doesn't.
Your failure to provide citations demonstrates, or rather confirms two things:
1. There are no citations that would support your faulty assertion.
2. Your understanding of physics and of how science is conducted is inadequate for a serious discussion on these matters.

Clearly, your desire to be asinine is interfering with your ability to listen.

If I was being asinine it was in response to your silly misinterpretation of Scripture and your misapplication of that misinterpretation to this topic. Your comments in that regard were ridiculous. I simply highlighted that.

If you wish to have further discussion with me please ensure your posts contain actual science rather than unfounded assertions. If you meet that condition I shall be happy to have an adult and hopefully productive conversation with you. Otherwise, not so much.

 

[Speedwell]

You do realize that creationists can belong to other religions besides Christianity, right?

I should think that theists generally believe that their god (or gods) is the author of their being. Calling them all "creationists" is a trivial use of the term. What we are talking about here, however, are creationists who are fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, who base their view of our origins on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is how the term is customarily used in this forum in any case.

Kenny's poll identified people who believed in the special creation of man, but one who believes in the special creation of man may well believe that evolution produced all the other creatures, indeed, in all else science tells of the age of the Earth and other such details, may reject a literal interpretation of Genesis or, indeed, may never even have heard of the book of Genesis--and thus not be a creationist within the usual understanding of the term.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

When was the term ever useful?

It is useful when it distinguishes between resisting or overcoming gravity and negating gravity.

We just want to launch spaceships that can float freely around without having to use propellant, do we not?

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Also not accurate. The physics of ultraviolet photolithography were unknown at the time: a necessary component for packing that much RFIC into something as small as a cell phone.

Walkie-talkies were invented many years before Star-Trek aired, and the first 'mobile' cellphone was produced only 7 years after the first Star-Trek episode. The modern mobile phone is a supercomputer with a built-in communicator by Star-Trek era standards.

 

[Strathos]

I should think that theists generally believe that their god (or gods) is the author of their being. Calling them all "creationists" is a trivial use of the term. What we are talking about here, however, are creationists who are fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants, who base their view of our origins on a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is how the term is customarily used in this forum in any case.

Kenny's poll identified people who believed in the special creation of man, but one who believes in the special creation of man may well believe that evolution produced all the other creatures, indeed, in all else science tells of the age of the Earth and other such details, may reject a literal interpretation of Genesis or, indeed, may never even have heard of the book of Genesis--and thus not be a creationist within the usual understanding of the term.

I define creationists, as the term is most commonly used, to be people who believe in the special creation of humans and often other extant species, in their current forms.

 

[Speedwell]

I define creationists, as the term is most commonly used, to be people who believe in the special creation of humans and often other extant species, in their current forms.

So the literal inerrancy of Genesis isn't the make-or-break issue? I always took it to be the central issue for creationists.
The trouble with your definition is that it includes a number of Christian denominations and other religious groups which our conservative Evangelical colleagues routinely condemn as unGodly for their stance on literal inerrancy. It seems unfair to bring them in just to bolster the numbers.

 

[usexpat97]

You still have not told me what physical laws this breaks.

No, I will give you a hint: I just told you in the very post you quoted. Discourse with you is useless if you refuse to read. That's at least twice now.

 

[usexpat97]

A list of things already invented since the original Star Trek (communicators being one):

Here are all the the things Star Trek accurately predicted

So while the critics sit off in the corner impressing us with how much they "know" it can't be done, we will be busy doing it. Thank you very much.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, I will give you a hint: I just told you in the very post you quoted. Discourse with you is useless if you refuse to read. That's at least twice now.

Discourse is useless if you lack the basic knowledge you claim. Perpetual motion is not only possible, it's one of the fundamentals of classical mechanics. You know, Isaac's First Law of Motion: a body shall remain in a state of rest or constant (i.e. perpetual) motion unless acted upon by an external force.

Superconductors have zero resistance to electrical current and therefore there is no conflict with the laws of physics that the current runs indefinitely.

Perpetual motion in the colloquial sense relates to a system in which the mechanism can do work. Money for nothing. That is a breach of the laws of physcis, but does not apply to the example you have given.

So do you have anything serious to present? (And this time, back up your assertions with citations. Your word has been demonstrated to be wortheless when it comes to basic physics.)

 

[Strathos]

So the literal inerrancy of Genesis isn't the make-or-break issue? I always took it to be the central issue for creationists.
The trouble with your definition is that it includes a number of Christian denominations and other religious groups which our conservative Evangelical colleagues routinely condemn as unGodly for their stance on literal inerrancy. It seems unfair to bring them in just to bolster the numbers.

Muslim and Hindu creationists are still creationists. They use many of the same arguments.

 

[joinfree]

That doesn't mean you can just make up any old tosh and expect it to become the new paradigm. 'People always say something is possible... until it isn't, and they are forced to admit it's not the new paradigm.'

The Absolute Truth is paradigm-independent. Correct? Each paradigm corresponds to own idol. The number of idols is the number of paradigms.