Explaining the God particle

[dad]

Your explanation of the "god" particle made no sense at all.

So you make sense then...so we can compare....

 

[dad]

I would say I cannot travel to the moon on a hot dog.

Finally....like pulling teeth with you...

Then whip it out, since it's a fact it should be easily presented and explained.

What science knows and can know is known. The laws of the past is not part of that. As for the biblle, God has been whipping it out for thousands of years. Keep up.

It's the additional evidence, not a belief system. That's your forté.

Now you claim evidence??? Example?

Oh but all questions were asked once to start with, so what you're saying is that if you ignore them once you will never adress them?

The answers were given, guess who is ignoring?

This is the third time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

Gibberish. Try posting one question.

 

[Elendur]

Finally....like pulling teeth with you...

I explicitly explained my answer, it was you who didn't understand.
Also, way to take out of context.

What science knows and can know is known. The laws of the past is not part of that. As for the biblle, God has been whipping it out for thousands of years. Keep up.

So now you claim that we can't have any evidence for DSP?

Now you claim evidence??? Example?

We can track annual and seasonal events into a long time ago, along with radiometric dating. Nothing indicates a break, as would be expected if DSP were true, therefore we can use all those things as evidence.

The answers were given, guess who is ignoring?

If you can link your answer, fine, but I specifically repeat those questions because you remove them when you quote, effectively not answering.
You did the same thing again, not answering another one of my questions;

Yup. What of it?

Gibberish. Try posting one question.

It is not gibberish, you know that very well. It just seems like posting it once isn't enough to get your attention.


This is the fourth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[Tiberius]

"Building a spaceship from 6 Lego blocks.."??? Wow. You are good.

What are you going on about?

 

[dad]

I explicitly explained my answer, it was you who didn't understand.
Also, way to take out of context.

Explain a present state past. Why blather?

So now you claim that we can't have any evidence for DSP?

You would not recognize it any more than a blind man. You are submerged in bad religion.

We can track annual and seasonal events into a long time ago, along with radiometric dating. Nothing indicates a break, as would be expected if DSP were true, therefore we can use all those things as evidence.

No. You can't. You were misinformed.

If you can link your answer, fine, but I specifically repeat those questions because you remove them when you quote, effectively not answering.
You did the same thing again, not answering another one of my questions;

So ask. Then pay attention.

This is the fourth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

Noo. You give squat. You listen.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

Then I agree with that. So?

 

[Elendur]

Explain a present state past. Why blather?

That has nothing to do with that part of our 'discussion'.

You would not recognize it any more than a blind man. You are submerged in bad religion.

If you say so. Yet as I see it you're not making a good case for that.

No. You can't. You were misinformed.

Then you don't know what evidence is (you've seemingly forgotten again).

So ask. Then pay attention.
Noo. You give squat. You listen.
Then I agree with that. So?

I think that you're not actually reading my posts, your inability to see them could be from pressing the quote button immediately.


This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[Jamin4422]

Just remember you cannot ride a hot dog to the moon, nor can your sister.

There is enough energy in a hot dog to get you to the moon and back. One pound of coal could provide all the power needs of NYC for a year.

 

[freezerman2000]

So you make sense then...so we can compare....

Why? So you can pretend not to try to understand?

 

[dad]

There is enough energy in a hot dog to get you to the moon and back. One pound of coal could provide all the power needs of NYC for a year.

Meaningless. You cannot ride one to the moon. (semantics and word games aside)

 

[dad]

Why? So you can pretend not to try to understand?

I may understand more than you suspect...careful. Never underestimate your opponent.

 

[dad]

That has nothing to do with that part of our 'discussion'.

Then why bring it up? Speak of something that you feel has some relevance and hopefully interest here.

Then you don't know what evidence is (you've seemingly forgotten again).

Depends what kind of evidence one means. Not all is the same.

I think that you're not actually reading my posts, your inability to see them could be from pressing the quote button immediately.

Then try to be clear in each thing you say .. so all can see clearly what the hec you are talking about, without having to hire a detective.

This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)
This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)This is the fifth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

There...your ten times is done. Move on. Hope that helped. Now, if you have something cohesive and rational to say, say it once clearly.

 

[Elendur]

Then why bring it up? Speak of something that you feel has some relevance and hopefully interest here.

Exacly, why did you bring it up?

Depends what kind of evidence one means. Not all is the same.

No, it seems like you're unaware of the general meaning of evidence. We don't even have to go down into the two categories.

Then try to be clear in each thing you say .. so all can see clearly what the hec you are talking about, without having to hire a detective.

How about actually reading my post?

There...your ten times is done. Move on. Hope that helped. Now, if you have something cohesive and rational to say, say it once clearly.

Nope. I'll try to make things even clearer, so that you won't have to read the post even.

This is the sixth time I'm posting these, I will give you ten tries.

How did you determine that?

(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

I'm also adding those question outside of their quotes, just for you, just so you won't have to read the post. Aint that awfully nice?
Of course you would probably have to read the post to find the context, but I doubt you'll do any effort other than your regular complaining.

How did you determine that?
(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

And could you provide with such records?

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

 

[dad]

Exacly, why did you bring it up?

Bring what up exactly? Maybe it was relative and interesting if I brought it up!

No, it seems like you're unaware of the general meaning of evidence. We don't even have to go down into the two categories.

False. You may not limit evidence to your little definitions. The bible abounds with evidence.

How about actually reading my post?

Why? What do you think was missed exactly? Be clear.

How did you determine that?
(Clarification, "that" refers to you claiming I'm not qualified to discuss rationally)

By reading what you have said so far. If some mistake was made, then dazzle us by showing quality content and how qualified you are by so doing.

And could you provide with such records?

I think you refer to history and the bible. They are here for all to see. Have been awhile now. So, in the bible we see a DSP I claim. If you claim otherwise make a bible case.

Wait, I am unqualified to discuss the term proven because I can't prove anything regarding the past or the future?

If you claim stuff about the future (like the sun will go out in 6 billion years or whatever) then you are unqualified. Of course. If you cannot prove the past was as this present state, you are unqualified to speak of what it was. Of course. Totally.

Obviously.

 

[Tiberius]

Meaningless. You cannot ride one to the moon. (semantics and word games aside)

There's enough energy in a tank of gas to drive you many hundreds of miles, but you can't ride gasoline. I guess you just proved that we can't use gasoline to go places.

You really are very short sighted.

 

[dad]

There's enough energy in a tank of gas to drive you many hundreds of miles, but you can't ride gasoline. I guess you just proved that we can't use gasoline to go places.

You really are very short sighted.

No. I mean business. The simple reality of the matter is that you cannot purchase a hot dog from a vendor, put some mustard and onions on it, and sit on it and fly to the moon. Get over it.

 

[Tiberius]

No. I mean business. The simple reality of the matter is that you cannot purchase a hot dog from a vendor, put some mustard and onions on it, and sit on it and fly to the moon. Get over it.

And that is not at all what Jamin said. Of course, if you can show where he suggested that you sit on it, I'll be happy to recant.

But the fact is that if you convert the entire mass of a hotdog to energy, it will be enough energy to move an average person from the Earth to the moon.

Einstein said so, he has the maths to back him up, and you have nothing.

 

[dad]

And that is not at all what Jamin said. Of course, if you can show where he suggested that you sit on it, I'll be happy to recant.

Doesn't matter what he said or thought. I brought up the hot dog thing. The idea is that you cannot ride it to the moon.

But the fact is that if you convert the entire mass of a hotdog to energy, it will be enough energy to move an average person from the Earth to the moon.

How will that help you buy a hot dog and ride it to the moon?

Einstein said so, he has the maths to back him up, and you have nothing.

Trust me, Einstein would agree with me on this one.

 

[Tiberius]

Doesn't matter what he said or thought. I brought up the hot dog thing. The idea is that you cannot ride it to the moon.

But you can convert it to energy which is enough energy to launch a person to the moon.

How will that help you buy a hot dog and ride it to the moon?

Show me where Jamin said you must stick the hot dog between your legs and ride it like a motorbike.

Trust me, Einstein would agree with me on this one.

Einstein would hit you in the back of the head with a large book and call you various unflattering names.

 

[Elendur]

Bring what up exactly? Maybe it was relative and interesting if I brought it up!

No. It wasn't.

You may not limit evidence to your little definitions. The bible abounds with evidence.

That's nonsensical, the definitions are entirely man made and with a purpose in mind. If you decide to include something else in the definition, make another term.

The bible abounds with evidence.

Yes, like everything else. However the bible would belong in the category of "subjective evidence".

Why? What do you think was missed exactly? Be clear.

My questions. I've been clear all the time.

By reading what you have said so far. If some mistake was made, then dazzle us by showing quality content and how qualified you are by so doing.

Way to avoid the question and shift the burden of proof. Feel free to read my post and answer the question correctly.

I think you refer to history and the bible. They are here for all to see. Have been awhile now. So, in the bible we see a DSP I claim. If you claim otherwise make a bible case.

Then present the evidence, you still haven't answered the question.

If you claim stuff about the future (like the sun will go out in 6 billion years or whatever) then you are unqualified. Of course. If you cannot prove the past was as this present state, you are unqualified to speak of what it was. Of course. Totally.

It's a yes or no question, what you've written doesn't answer the question and is nonsensical.

Obviously.

There's nothing obvious about what you're writing.

 

[dad]

But you can convert it to energy which is enough energy to launch a person to the moon.

Hey, buy a hot dog from a vendor, put whatever dressing you like on it, and convert it all you like. You will not be riding it to the moon. Period.

Einstein would hit you in the back of the head with a large book and call you various unflattering names.

No. He would probably admit that relativity was relative to the fishbowl and ask for an autograph