Snore.
Modern searches for Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So far, C is holding up pretty good.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Everyone? I would like to see you show ANYONE that can prove space and time are the same far away! It doesn't really matter what they assumed or thought or believed.
No. here is the formula___Snore.
Modern searches for Lorentz violation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So far, C is holding up pretty good.
*yawns in boredom and hands dad notes from an introductory science class on the scientific method*
http://ijolite.geology.uiuc.edu/06S.../100_lectures/Lecture01/100_Lect01_topics.pdf
That's what I said. It is related. If C refers to light speed, for example, there is a relation. Obviously.No, light is related to c; so is everything else. Learn some physics.
We the intelligent free thinkers.Who is this "we"? There's just you.
I don't believe you...data from...where, earth?Sorry, but the Higgs mechanism does provide a good model for observed data. Just because you don't understand either the data or the model doesn't mean physicists have to stop usingthem.
Mass? Ha.The numbers represent observed data -- you know, stuff you know nothing about, but insist on talking about anyway. Things like the mass of the W and the Z.
"
In physics, mass (from Greek μᾶζα "barley cake, lump (of dough)"), more specifically inertial mass, can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object's resistance to acceleration. In addition to this, gravitational mass can be described as a measure of magnitude of the gravitational force which is
Mass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- exerted by an object (active gravitational mass), or
- experienced by an object (passive gravitational force)"
Now, if something (you might try to call mass) in deep space was moving..yet it was more than 3D physical only stuff, moving in different space and time...your formulas won't work. Keep it real.Well, unless we know how distant, (therefore how big, etc) that has no great meaning.Observation of distant stars and supernovae that behave exactly like local ones. More stuff you don't know or care about.
Not like you know what space and time far far away even are like! Don't even say proof. Maybe say 'clueless'.You know very well that proving anything is impossible, so could you stop asking for impossibilities over and over again?
The Higgs mechanism does not miraculously create mass out of "nothing." Rather, the mass is transferred to the particle from the Higgs field, which contained this mass in the form of energy.4, 5 Thus, the Higgs mechanism does not account for the origin of mass in the ultimate sense. If God chooses to use a Higgs field to set the masses of all particles, He can certainly do so. The fact that such physics is possible or even meaningful would only make sense in a created universe that is controlled by the mind of God anyway. The study of how God upholds the universe today is the very essence of science. So the possible discovery of the Higgs boson falls under operational science, not origins science.
I haven't said proof. The evidence is plenty to not be 'clueless' though.Not like you know what space and time far far away even are like! Don't even say proof. Maybe say 'clueless'.
Singularity and big bang are used almost in the same breath. But rather than getting all hotty totty, and sanctimonious over precise accepted silly so called worthless science terms...deal with the issues. Three singularities a black hole and a dollar might get you a donut!Thanks for showing a quote that proved my point precisely. Much appreciated. It's much easier to defeat you time and time again when you defeat yourself so readily!
Earth space....not relevant to deep space.Well the 'marginally less accurate' version of our knowledge of gravity 'here on earth' just got a probe out of the solar system...so seems pretty accurate so far...the fishbowl grows bigger by the day!
You see stars, not distance. Yes stars exist out of earth space...and..???Well, we can see it for starters. So, given that any one of the many billions of galaxies observable out there in the universe would take up a space bigger than the fishbowl, such that we can be sure even without measuring any kind of distance they are beyond the fishbowl (otherwise their gravitational effect would be measurable IN the fishbowl)...where does this leave you?
I don't know. I suspect not all are equal...or even close. Some might be tiny far far away.What do you think they are? Do you actually think God put moving pictures on the walls of the fishbowl that look - well gee, EXACTLY like what we should see if the universe was indeed billions of light years across, with galaxies galore?
Correction. Not messing with ME!Are you comfortable in your worldview with a deity that is, to put it bluntly, messing with you? You ascribe omnipotence to your deity then vastly curtail his creation. You have him alter the laws of physics to be able to perform his deeds, as if he cannot merely suspend or act in spite of them.
False. That refers to something in particular. I doubt it is general sin. Man knew sin since Eden.Let's look to our Bibles...2 Thessalonians 2:7. "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way"
Buzz Lightyear and science! If we want to get technical is not event horizon all you can see?Beyond? Whoever claimed to know what was 'beyond' the universe?
If wishes were horses so called science devotees would ride.Yeah - you're a troll. A very defeated troll.
So? Another little item in the chain that is involved in making up stuff on earth ..no? Spiritual stuff and physical and spiritual stuff merged together...and stuff in different time and space does not follow our fishbowl temporal state rules.In brief, the hypothesis is a construct that gives rise to mass in gauge bosons. The hypothesis is being tested, and we know that there is a particle that looks a lot like we would expect the excitation of the Higgs Field to look like.
Believing in Him and creation, as His Son taught, actually is all He asks. Inventing godless fables, and not being able to come to a knowledge of the truth was not what He suggested for us. I kid you not.Your simplistic worldview demeans in the greatest possible way the very deity you claim to worship.
You just said thisI haven't said proof. The evidence is plenty to not be 'clueless' though.
Science has no idea what space and time is far away. Proof is not a word that enters into any conversation that could relate to what they know. I agree. That being said, it is obvious they cannot prove earth space and time exist in deep space!Just stop it with the 'prove' and 'proof', you're not making yourself look better, especially since you've been told why several times.
The verb 'prove' =/= The subjective 'proof'.You just said this
"You know very well that proving anything is impossible.."
Why state the obvious other than to gain some imagined credibility?Science has no idea what space and time is far away. Proof is not a word that enters into any conversation that could relate to what they know. I agree. That being said, it is obvious they cannot prove earth space and time exist in deep space!
Why state the obvious other than to gain some imagined credibility?
Why would I deny that it's plausible? I've admitted that before you registered on the forum even.Because he just got you to concede that his 'different states' idea is at least plausible.
Point, Dad.
If you agree it is obvious science is hopeless in the proof dept, fine. How could I argue that? The bible is strong in that dept...has been for many centuries. What a contrast!The verb 'prove' =/= The subjective 'proof'.
Why state the obvious other than to gain some imagined credibility?
Everything Science knows shows us that the Universe is the same everywhere. Same elements, same laws. I do not know what you mean by different states past. But evolution is based on Change. If something changes then it must be different from what it was.Everyone? I would like to see you show ANYONE that can prove space and time are the same far away! It doesn't really matter what they assumed or thought or believed.
Unless it changed fast in a different past. Also, there is actually nothing that tells us space or time is the same. They don't so much as know what they are!Everything Science knows shows us that the Universe is the same everywhere. Same elements, same laws. I do not know what you mean by different states past. But evolution is based on Change. If something changes then it must be different from what it was.
Plausible is in the eye of the observer. Plausible is relative. Plausible can be whatever dyed in the wool evos chose to swallow I guess...at least the way you use the poor word.Why would I deny that it's plausible? I've admitted that before you registered on the forum even.
The matrix is plausible. Even me saying I've created the entire universe three seconds before you're reading this is plausible. It's just as plausible like embedded age and lastthusdayism. There's simply no evidence for it.
(Of course, that's given that we ignore his idea about liquid nitrogen freezing entire oceans to form the glaciers usually used for ice cores, that's not a thought through argument)
The bible contains proof? Why haven't you spread it around? That would make everyone believers.If you agree it is obvious science is hopeless in the proof dept, fine. How could I argue that? The bible is strong in that dept...has been for many centuries. What a contrast!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?