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.
Which specific part?
The cases I speak of ARE anecdotes; but that's irrelevant. I'll reiterate the point, since it seems that slipped by you the first time.
If a Law does not apply at all time; it's not a Law. It can be nothing more than a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, good guess.
Again every Newtonian law has caved in QM experiments.
I saw a really simple one which involved an internal combustion engine. If you feed the engine more fuel it would reason that it would turn faster. This can be calculated using laws of science; but upon closer inspection there are nodes in in the RPM band, where the plane bearing of the crank shaft, instead of acting as a place bearing, and spinning; the crank rolls on the outer bearing. This causes a significant drop in efficiency. One would never notice theses nodes by making a natural sweep in acceleration; but in a tightly controlled situation this phenomenon can be made apparent. The fact is that these nodes occur in every engine; and effect the truly accurate calculations for HP. Until recently these factors were unknown.
This is a very basic example that most people can understand; but there are seemingly endless factors that science in unaware of.
It's a logical argument, presented as a whole.
Your point seems to be that you don't understand what Newtonian laws are.
Newtonian laws?
I was talking about Newtonian Physics. Apparently you didn't understand what I was talking about. I even gave examples.
Please try to pay close attention to what I actually say, instead of letting your imagination tell you what I'm saying.
That isn't providing evidence, it's merely repeating that it exists... which I dispute.Shemjaza: What evidence?
HARK!: the empirical evidence
If the words have changed, what's the new term for "All that exists?" And what does Universe mean now?Have you ever thought the dictionary definition may need updating? Words can change meaning over time.
Why does such a word have to exist?If the words have changed, what's the new term for "All that exists?"
1. Please provide a citation for the IC engine effect you mention.Again every Newtonian law has caved in QM experiments.
I saw a really simple one which involved an internal combustion engine. If you feed the engine more fuel it would reason that it would turn faster. This can be calculated using laws of science; but upon closer inspection there are nodes in in the RPM band, where the plane bearing of the crank shaft, instead of acting as a place bearing, and spinning; the crank rolls on the outer bearing. This causes a significant drop in efficiency. One would never notice theses nodes by making a natural sweep in acceleration; but in a tightly controlled situation this phenomenon can be made apparent. The fact is that these nodes occur in every engine; and effect the truly accurate calculations for HP. Until recently these factors were unknown.
Because once something is given a name, as long as it exist; it must always have a name.Why does such a word have to exist?
How about you provide a source to show me exactly what you mean?
Most nouns have multiple meanings. Context typically points to which is applicable. "Universe" works fine, in everyday conversations, for "all that exists". You really do seem to have got, unnecessarily, your undergarments in a topological extravaganza over this.Because once something is given a name, as long as it exist; it must always have a name.
What evidence?
You still haven't acknowledged that space and time can be distorted by gravity and relative velocity.
How about you actually make your point.
And how about you address all the other parts of my post which you ignored?
For your information your points are not at all obvious. Since you felt it important to make them in the first place, perhaps you would like to have another go at communicating them, for it obviously hasn't worked too well.
I cannot even detect a clear point in your posts. The signal to noise ratio is barely detectable. Just present your central point in summary, in a paragraph; multiple paragraphs, if there are multiple points.For which points do you need clarification?
I cannot even detect a clear point in your posts. The signal to noise ratio is barely detectable. Just present your central point in summary, in a paragraph; multiple paragraphs, if there are multiple points.
I entered the thread some distance in. Your posts then seemed in coherent. I have attempted to read your OP, but stopped after your two axioms. I repeat them here for the benefit of other readers:Again, I made my point in the OP. What part of the OP are you still struggling with?
Your first axiom is unsound, containing as it does a false statement. Matter and energy can both be infinite in an infinite universe. This does not require, as you think, that this would require an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, solid mass. That is an egregious error on your part.1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.
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?