thesometimesaint Posted April 19, 2012 Posted April 19, 2012 Cobalt-70:It is fun to speculate. However God was a man is standard Mormon and other Christian belief. The only earthly example we have is Jesus the Christ.
Franktalk Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Frankentalk,Tarski understands the difference between potentially productive unconventional ideas based on a look at the science from a different perspective (like Einstein who tried to imagine the world from the perspective of a photon, for example, and realized that things worked better if all observed motion was considered relative) and, on the other hand, the wild and wholly unfounded imaginings of folks who show no sign of having a clue about the science (like perpetual motion machine inventors).You, my friend, definitely fall into the latter category, and should probably learn the difference before you try to lecture someone like Tarski on science or even the philosophy of science.You are so right, my understanding of all of this mess is probably wrong. But as dumb as I am I still run across things which to me don't fit in in Tarski's universe and yours. Like the other day I was watching a video of a conference hosted by NASA and they had on some complete quack talking about plasma in the universe. He said that his friends tell him that 99% of the universe is plasma and maybe we should look at the universe with plasma as a major feature. But he did go on to say that we could argue over what that means but we can't argue over the fact that 99% of the universe is plasma. Anyway this total nincompoop who was introduced as Van Allen probably should be ignored as an idiot. But just in case people wish to see this man speak I have included a link to the video. The comments occur at the 18 min mark. But I am sure that you and Tarski have had a much bigger impact on science then this complete wacko. Feel free to tell me how this guy is a nut job. I am all ears.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 You are so right, my understanding of all of this mess is probably wrong. But as dumb as I am I still run across things which to me don't fit in in Tarski's universe and yours. Like the other day I was watching a video of a conference hosted by NASA and they had on some complete quack talking about plasma in the universe. He said that his friends tell him that 99% of the universe is plasma and maybe we should look at the universe with plasma as a major feature. But he did go on to say that we could argue over what that means but we can't argue over the fact that 99% of the universe is plasma. Anyway this total nincompoop who was introduced as Van Allen probably should be ignored as an idiot. But just in case people wish to see this man speak I have included a link to the video. The comments occur at the 18 min mark.The sad thing, for him, is that according to conventional science, actually only 4% of the universe is plasma. So he wasn't even right about the thing he thought you couldn't argue about.
Franktalk Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) The sad thing, for him, is that according to conventional science, actually only 4% of the universe is plasma. So he wasn't even right about the thing he thought you couldn't argue about.So are you saying that Doctor Van Allen is wrong?http://en.wikipedia....James_Van_Allen TIME magazine Man of the Year in 1960Elliott Cresson Medal in 1961Distinguished Fellow, Iowa Academy of Science in 1975Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1978National Medal of Science in 1987Crafoord Prize in 1989Vannevar Bush Award in 1991NASA's Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994National Air and Space Museum Trophy in 2006 Edited April 20, 2012 by Franktalk
thesometimesaint Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Edited April 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint
TAO Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) So are you saying that Doctor Van Allen is wrong?http://en.wikipedia....James_Van_AllenTIME magazine Man of the Year in 1960Elliott Cresson Medal in 1961Distinguished Fellow, Iowa Academy of Science in 1975Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1978National Medal of Science in 1987Crafoord Prize in 1989Vannevar Bush Award in 1991NASA's Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994National Air and Space Museum Trophy in 2006Cobalt, medals doesn't mean a man always is correct Ya gotta do research even for those Edited April 20, 2012 by TAO
Franktalk Posted April 20, 2012 Posted April 20, 2012 Cobalt, medals doesn't mean a man always is correct Ya gotta do research even for those I am sure that Cobalt's research is top notch. It is a shame that the world has not caught up to the fact however.
Franktalk Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 For those who study quasars and can't seem to make black holes emit streams of particles I have something for you. I ran across a video of some people doing research into fusion. And of course they were using a very interesting approach to creating a high temp plasma. Very interesting indeed. This video is a little technical but the main ideas are easily grasped. I find it amazing that people dream up all kinds of new stuff when the old stuff seems to work so well at explaining many things.
shalamabobbi Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 For those who study quasars and can't seem to make black holes emit streams of particles I have something for you. I ran across a video of some people doing research into fusion. And of course they were using a very interesting approach to creating a high temp plasma. Very interesting indeed. This video is a little technical but the main ideas are easily grasped. I find it amazing that people dream up all kinds of new stuff when the old stuff seems to work so well at explaining many things.So did he get the funding?
bcuzbcuz Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&feature=relatedHere is one that I like.You're back to Arp again and his long time associate, Burbidge, and his thoughts that he had a new explanation for red shift and red **** quantization. Arp's awards were back in the sixties. Hardly news.The Youtube film you use shows a picture of Hubble. Too bad Hubble's dead and doesn't get a chance himself to explain his thoughts. Would he have accepted Arp's ideas? The Hubble telescope, launched long after Arp put forth his ideas, has provided ample evidence that Arp's ideas don't hold water.
Franktalk Posted April 21, 2012 Posted April 21, 2012 So did he get the funding?I don't know but I will look them up. I will post what I find. I come across many very interesting projects on youtube. Of course many are worthless in my opinion but I could be wrong. This one held my attention because of the beams which come out of the condensed plasma core. I loved the idea of using the characteristics of plasma instead of using brute force to control a plasma.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) So are you saying that Doctor Van Allen is wrong?http://en.wikipedia....James_Van_AllenTIME magazine Man of the Year in 1960Elliott Cresson Medal in 1961Distinguished Fellow, Iowa Academy of Science in 1975Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1978National Medal of Science in 1987Crafoord Prize in 1989Vannevar Bush Award in 1991NASA's Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994National Air and Space Museum Trophy in 2006If he said that 99% of the universe was plasma, then he was wrong. Then again, I don't know how old this video is. Looking at the styles of dress, it seems to be older than the COBE and WMAP satellites, which allowed us to measure exactly how much of the universe (4%) was composed of matter. If so, then he'd be forgiven. Besides, Van Allen wasn't a cosmologist, or even an astrophysicist. He was a rocket scientist, but he did some pioneering work on near-earth space physics, like cosmic rays and the solar wind. Edited April 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Franktalk Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 If he said that 99% of the universe was plasma, then he was wrong. Then again, I don't know how old this video is. Looking at the styles of dress, it seems to be older than the COBE and WMAP satellites, which allowed us to measure exactly how much of the universe (4%) was composed of matter. If so, then he'd be forgiven. Besides, Van Allen wasn't a cosmologist, or even an astrophysicist. He was a rocket scientist, but he did some pioneering work on near-earth space physics, like cosmic rays and the solar wind.I will still go with his opinion over yours. Also you might want to update wikipedia they seem to be way behind you in knowledge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29According to them the stars are hot and the elements are in plasma form and the gas between the stars. So please update the site and let me know when I should go reread it.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) I will still go with his opinion over yours. Also you might want to update wikipedia they seem to be way behind you in knowledge.http://en.wikipedia....a_%28physics%29According to them the stars are hot and the elements are in plasma form and the gas between the stars. So please update the site and let me know when I should go reread it.You are misinterpreting the Wikipedia article. This article says that plasma is "the most common state of matter for ordinary matter." But the amount of "ordinary matter" in the universe is only about 4.6%. The rest of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy.(From http://map.gsfc.nasa...yr_release.html.) Edited April 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Eldwynn Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) If you had the experiences in your life that I have had you would not say these things. You seem to feel that if something is not available for all to experience then it is impossible for one person to experience that thing. This is a collective consciousness which is not a truth. Truth exist as an absolute and is not bound by your conditional logic. I can experience something and determine for myself if that experience is real. I will then act on that assessment and change my life according to my new worldview. You are free to have your own views on reality and adjust your life as you see fit. But don't you think it is over the top to deny my personal experiences in my life? You can not be me and I can not be you. We must have different experiences in life. Your lack of respect is telling in that it seems you believe in some universal truth and refuse to allow the possibility that you might be wrong. I know I am wrong on many things and I know that man has overreached on many subjects. I continue to seek for knowledge but know it is a very hard thing to get enough data to make absolute statements. I can tell you what is true for me but each of us must find truth where we can. If you are happy with the path you are on then so be it. Just don't tell me that there are no other paths. This is a minority opinion and one that does not bring you much respect, at least in my eyes it does not.I can not deny what I know to be true. No matter how much you jump up and down and shout.Sorry for the necro, but I don't have as much time as I used to. The amount of double speak here is truly amazing. You are either:1) agreeing with me.OR2) Saying that "your" personal experiences are somehow more valid than "mine" (but then you go on to say this isn't the case). You then go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth that I never actually said. I am not asserting that I KNOW there is no god. I look at the evidence around me, and tentatively reject the hypothesis that god exists... for now. Maybe evidence will arise that convinces me otherwise. If it does, I will not go around claiming to know things I don't.After listening to general authorities, I think they are in the "I know 100% the church is true" camp. I did an interesting poll a while ago. When you ask the average member whether they are in this "100 percent knowledge camp" they tend to say no... that they are just kind of sure. However, when you ask them if general authorities and high ranking church members are... they say yes. It's honestly this kind of "absolute knowledge" that bothers me If the evidence convinces you that there is a God, then great- provided that you honestly admit the limits of the evidence. To do anything else is just being dishonest to others. It's claiming an authority that you just don't have. Edited April 27, 2012 by Eldwynn
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 You are misinterpreting the Wikipedia article. This article says that plasma is "the most common state of matter for ordinary matter." But the amount of "ordinary matter" in the universe is only about 4.6%. The rest of the universe is composed of dark matter and dark energy.(From http://map.gsfc.nasa...yr_release.html.)So the stuff we can't see and can't measure is not plasma. Just how do you know it is not plasma? Or some other form of plasma? And what if the plasma we see is charged and that charge is what is causing the effects blamed on dark energy and dark matter? I mean if you can tell me I am wrong and you use something no one has ever seen or measured I think I can make any statement I want and it should have as much weight as your nonsense. But if your group of guys who all think the same agree on something I guess it must be true.
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 It's honestly this kind of "absolute knowledge" that bothers me If the evidence convinces you that there is a God, then great- provided that you honestly admit the limits of the evidence. To do anything else is just being dishonest to others. It's claiming an authority that you just don't have.The problem is your rejection of my evidence and the absolute acceptance of the evidence you think you have as all there is. You are so far from me in the way we think that what I say will be meaningless to you. Your only recourse is to call me dishonest. I have no authority. You read that into the words I use. I guess we just disagree. So be it.
Mariner Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 Just a quick suggestion for Franktalk (with regard to his post # 266 above) to look up the definition of a plasma before he asks how scientists can know that most of dark matter is not plasma. Honestly, Franktalk, you are really out of your depth here. Most of your stuff on this thread is almost too painful to read.
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 Just a quick suggestion for Franktalk (with regard to his post # 266 above) to look up the definition of a plasma before he asks how scientists can know that most of dark matter is not plasma.Honestly, Franktalk, you are really out of your depth here. Most of your stuff on this thread is almost too painful to read.A rejection from the world is a badge of honor. But I am sure you see things differently. There was another man in history that told others that the world hated Him. He also said that the wisdom of this world is foolishness. Strange fellow, maybe you have heard of Him.
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 Just some comments for people to chew on.If Jesus came today just how do you all think He would be received? Just as He performed miracles in front of people and they refused to see, do you think today would be any different? He would come to save souls and not explain the workings of the universe. So how many would refuse Him because they would say "If He was the Son of God then He would explain the mysteries of the universe". But that would not be His goal to explain things to people that are already lost to the world. He would speak to the heart and many would follow Him. But those Pharisees, er scholars would have their own ideas and their own truth. A truth based on evidence. And just what evidence did Christ leave for us? He told us instead to live in faith and seek the spirit. And just where is any spiritual understanding obtained in the study of stuff, er, the world. So every once in a while some may come along and speak of strange beliefs and evidence of the heart. But to save your world how many would take that stranger and nail Him to a tree.
Eldwynn Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 The problem is your rejection of my evidence and the absolute acceptance of the evidence you think you have as all there is. You are so far from me in the way we think that what I say will be meaningless to you. Your only recourse is to call me dishonest. I have no authority. You read that into the words I use. I guess we just disagree. So be it.Are you even listening?You claim that I absolutely accept some sort of evidence. I don't. If you have read something that suggests otherwise in this thread, can you please point to it?Science is not perfect. It's just the best tool we have. Science tentatively accepts evidence of a theory, and then tries its hardest to prove it wrong. Could we be wrong? OF COURSE. We could all be wrong. The current model for the beginning of the universe is definitely wrong. How do I know this? Because it doesn't explain everything yet. However, it is as consistent with observable evidence as it can be. That counts for something. Even still, consistent with observable evidence doesn't mean it is definitely true. The theory that the earth was flat used to be "consistent with observable evidence". So even if we "allow" your subjective spiritual evidence, that still, at best, makes your religious ideas "maybe" true. Not "I know the church is true", but "I suspect it is". When a prophet stops saying the former, and starts saying the latter, then I will believe them to be honest and internally consistent.
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 I look at the evidence around me, and tentatively reject the hypothesis that god exists... for now. Maybe evidence will arise that convinces me otherwise.Maybe it is just me. I thought you were saying that you tentatively reject that God exist. But you leave open the idea that you might change your mind.
altersteve Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 No amount of logic or scientific evidence can prove to anyone that God exists, or even that He doesn't. Trying to use logic or evidence to prove God's existence is a total waste of time.
altersteve Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 And just where is any spiritual understanding obtained in the study of stuff, er, the world.Spiritual understanding most certainly can come from the study of the world.
Franktalk Posted April 28, 2012 Posted April 28, 2012 Spiritual understanding most certainly can come from the study of the world.You will have to tell me more about this path to spirituality from the world. I always thought that the existence of the universe alone was the starting point. For we are without excuse not to see the power of God knowing that the universe did not create itself. And from that point we seek the unseen God behind the physical world. This is why we develop our spiritual self in order to transcend this physical plane and commune with God directly. If you have a path to God based on physical evidence then let me know what that is.
Recommended Posts