-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Physics and the Immortality of the Soul
- Thread starter Norman321
- Start date
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
I play plenty of games, not many First-Person-Shooters (or sports games, the horror) though so I haven't gotten to BF3 yetWhich games do you play? (don't tell me BF3)
Right now the ones in my focus are Diablo 3, League of Legends and Dwarf Fortress (though the latter won't be done for the nearest 20 years
).Given the form of your question I take it you don't care much about BF3? Perhaps a bit outside your preferences?
Upvote
0
mzungu
INVICTUS
Yes you are right about BF3. I totally enjoyed BF2 and then they spoiled it all by turning BF into a console style game.I play plenty of games, not many First-Person-Shooters (or sports games, the horror) though so I haven't gotten to BF3 yet
Right now the ones in my focus are Diablo 3, League of Legends and Dwarf Fortress (though the latter won't be done for the nearest 20 years
Given the form of your question I take it you don't care much about BF3? Perhaps a bit outside your preferences?
I also enjoy the Tomb raider games, Command and Conquer, etc.
My son is very much into league of Legends!
Upvote
0
Ignoring your usual obsession with labs - this statement is entirely false. Only a novice claims that current inflation theory violates general or special relativity. When you actually study it in detail - there is absolutely no constraint on the expansion of space-time within relativity - the mathematics of this is always expressed in terms of comoving coordinates, as I think you probably know. Not sure why you're throwing in such a basic error and ill-formed phrases as 'objects made of mass' - when otherwise your points are somewhat less easily refuted without resorting to fairly advanced ideas.
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
BF2, C&C and tomb raider (though some better than others), you've got good tasteYes you are right about BF3. I totally enjoyed BF2 and then they spoiled it all by turning BF into a console style game.
I also enjoy the Tomb raider games, Command and Conquer, etc.
My son is very much into league of Legends!
I'm not surprised that your son plays LoL
it's one of the biggest online games right now, and growing.Too bad about BF3 though
so it's not a recommended game from your side?
Upvote
0
mzungu
INVICTUS
BF2 had amazing gameplay and strategy. Then they made BFBC2 which had very good destruction but less strategy and then they made BF3 which is made for consoles and ported over to PCs; It has less destruction than BFBC2 and almost no strategy and certainly has none of the features that made BF2 so successful. Don't buy BF3!BF2, C&C and tomb raider (though some better than others), you've got good taste
I'm not surprised that your son plays LoL
Too bad about BF3 though
Also BF3 uses ORIGIN to be able to play and ORIGIN is basically SPYWARE! EA Games now know everything you have installed into your PC! Stay clear from ORIGIN and BF3.
Upvote
0
Elendur
Gamer and mathematician
Ok, thanks for the infoBF2 had amazing gameplay and strategy. Then they made BFBC2 which had very good destruction but less strategy and then they made BF3 which is made for consoles and ported over to PCs; It has less destruction than BFBC2 and almost no strategy and certainly has none of the features that made BF2 so successful. Don't buy BF3!
Also BF3 uses ORIGIN to be able to play and ORIGIN is basically SPYWARE! EA Games now know everything you have installed into your PC! Stay clear from ORIGIN and BF3.
I'll keep that in mind.
Upvote
0
- Jul 12, 2003
- 4,012
- 814
- 84
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Politics
- UK-Labour
So what? Deism predicts that God will not show up in a lab too. I still wouldn't consider deism to be a form of "science" or "physics", just a "religion" that requires faith in the 'unseen' forever and ever like mainstream cosmology "religion".
No, they do not. They have observational evidence for redshift not for expansion or acceleration. They certainly have no observational evidence that "dark energy" did it, even *if* we assumed that redshift is related to acceleration.
They don't! That observation by Chen et all in the lab two years ago pretty much destroys, certainly undermines their "interpretation' of the redshift phenomenon.
That depends on what you mean by "out of line". Their original prediction was a 'slowing' universe. Dark energy was added to "fix" a failure in their theory, and yet 'dark energy' has never "accelerated' a single atom anywhere in any lab.
It's certainly "out of line" with empirical measurements of plasma redshift in the lab.
Pffft. The standard model is more of a 'religion' and less empirical and therefore less "testable" than anything I've proposed. Whatever it actually "predicted" just went up in smoke in the lab.
I actually posted it to the appropriate thread as well.
It heard that!
I didn't misrepresent it, I simply noted that it's lack of empirical support (qualification) makes it a religion rather than a form of empirical physics.
Assuming that's true, that's also true of my empirical theory of God concept as well. There are a few features that do not have empirical support (yet).
Ya know....
If you're going to blame me for misrepresenting mainstream theory, the least you could do is acknowledge the correct meaning of the term "monotheism". There is no such thing as a "Muslim God" or a "Christian God" or a "Jewish God". We all agree there is but one God, and many "religions" that describe that one God. If you're asking me if I'm skeptical of the Christian religion, it depends on how you define the "Christian religion".
The best way I could explain my beliefs is to say that I love Jesus and I honor his teachings. He is my personal Lord and savior. At one point in my life I was even skeptical of his teachings, but after applying them to my life, not so much anymore. I still have no faith in YEC or concepts like 'book infallibility" (of any religion), or eternal torment. I still consider myself to be a (universalist) Christian, but like I said, it depends on how you define "Christianity".
If you expect me to put any faith in the concept, the core parts should all be reproducible in the lab. That's definitely true if you expect to compete with PC/EU theory over the long haul. EU's key "predictions' all show up in the lab, and none of it requires "faith in the unseen" in the lab. Even my concept of "God" kicks the empirical hell out of mainstream cosmological dogma.
How about this then, Michael? There's enough fascinating material here to blow your mind. That bornagain77 seems to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of science:
Shroud of Turin continues to baffle researchers | Uncommon Descent
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
True enough.
I suppose that's the core difference between having a position of strong atheism or theism, vs. having a weak atheistic stance. You're just afraid of commitment.
FYI, that's exactly how I got into discussions with astronomers.
I agree. It's better than most astronomy forums as well by the way. I actually have more freedom to discuss my whole range of beliefs and I'm unlikely to be banned for my cosmological heresy here.
One thing I've noticed about most of the folks that "lack belief' on this particular forum is that they are typically very adept at getting their points across without a lot of emotional baggage and without a lot of personal insults. I think that's an admirable quality. Unfortunately I have a few things to learn yet along those lines. I'm trying. I do appreciate the feedback, but you'll need to be a bit patient with me. I've still got some things to learn and bad habits can be really hard to break.
Frank J Tipler has a book called "the physics of immortality"
and on the preface states:
"The "omega point" is a beautiful pure physics construct, and it should not be sullied by calling it "God".
what do you think he means by this?
Upvote
0
Matter cannot travel faster than light according to GR, and "space" never does any magic expanding tricks in the lab. Objects move, but "space" does not.
The problem as I see things, is that "Godenergy" and "Godflation" isn't "incompatible" with GR theory either. I mean if you're going to stuff GR full of metaphysical entities, how is it then any different from a "religion"?
I hear you, that "technically" it's acceptable to do such things in GR in terms of the math, but in terms of empirical physics, it's a giant step backwards IMO.
What's worse IMO is that plasma redshift has already been documented in the lab, and the "smoking gun" that kills your interpretation is the fact that the various wavelengths do not all arrive at the same time as "predicted" in an expansion theory. You're interpretation is pretty much in opposition to the empirical facts, where as a simple plasma redshift theory is not. There are even C# models now to "explain" the effect in plasma and they "correctly predict' the fact that various wavelengths are affected differently and arrive and different times.
Upvote
0
Space doesn't do any magic expanding tricks in the lab, and you and I both know it. Spacetime can be "compressed and stretched", but space isn't even physically defined in GR in the first place! *What* exactly (physically) in "space" is even capable of 'expanding'?
"Distance" can increase as objects *move*, but space doesn't do any expansion tricks in the lab, not ever.
Upvote
0
Doveaman
Re-Created, Not Evolved.
- Mar 4, 2009
- 8,464
- 597
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
God-Energy confirmed:
I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts... (Isa 44:24, 45:12).
Upvote
0
mzungu
INVICTUS
Space and time are inseparable. it has been proven many times that spacetime is affected by relativity. Sorry but you are wrong: Time-Warping Occurs in Daily Life | Wired Science | Wired.com
Upvote
0
Nobody doubts that "spacetime" is affected by objects of mass, or that objects of mass warp spacetime. You've still provided no evidence that "space" is even physically defined in/by GR theory, or that it does any magic expanding tricks separate from "spacetime". Spacetime can expand as the objects of mass expand and move, but space cannot and does not do any magic expanding tricks by itself.
Upvote
0
createdtoworship
In the grip of grace
- Mar 13, 2004
- 18,941
- 1,758
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I know several people who do, maybe in your circles they don't. Which is understandable.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
