320 replies to this topic

[Franktalk]

shalamabobbi, on 21 April 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

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]

Franktalk, on 20 April 2012 - 06:47 AM, said:

So are you saying that Doctor Van Allen is wrong?

http://en.wikipedia....James_Van_Allen

• TIME magazine Man of the Year in 1960
  
• Elliott Cresson Medal in 1961
  
• Distinguished Fellow, Iowa Academy of Science in 1975
  
• Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1978
  
• National Medal of Science in 1987
  
• Crafoord Prize in 1989
  
• Vannevar Bush Award in 1991
  
• NASA's Lifetime Achievement Award in 1994
  
• National Air and Space Museum Trophy in 2006

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.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 23 April 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Franktalk]

Cobalt-70, on 23 April 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

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....lasma_(physics)

According 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]

Franktalk, on 23 April 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

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%29

According 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 by Cobalt-70, 24 April 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[Eldwynn]

Franktalk, on 17 April 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.
OR
2) 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 by Eldwynn, 26 April 2012 - 08:42 PM.

[Franktalk]

Cobalt-70, on 24 April 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

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]

Eldwynn, on 26 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

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]

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]

Mariner, on 27 April 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

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]

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]

Franktalk, on 27 April 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

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]

Eldwynn, on 26 April 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

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]

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]

Franktalk, on 27 April 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

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]

altersteve, on 28 April 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

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.

[thesometimesaint]

The best available evidence right is our universe starte as a singularity of infinite heat and infinite mass. No one knows exactly what infinite mass or infinite heat is, but that is what our present day models point to.

God said let there be light and it was. Some 14 billions of years later we can still measure it. Scientists just call it the Big Bang.

[Eldwynn]

thesometimesaint, on 28 April 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

The best available evidence right is our universe starte as a singularity of infinite heat and infinite mass. No one knows exactly what infinite mass or infinite heat is, but that is what our present day models point to.

God said let there be light and it was. Some 14 billions of years later we can still measure it. Scientists just call it the Big Bang.

Really?

So some Bronze age people wrote down (to my knowledge we have nothing written by the big man himself) that the beginning of the universe started with a bang of light, and it's inconceivable that this could just be a coincidence?  Actually, I think I agree with you.  That literally is the best evidence.

Edited by Eldwynn, 29 April 2012 - 09:59 AM.

[Eldwynn]

altersteve, on 28 April 2012 - 01:17 PM, said:

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.

Well, you can't prove a negative in this case.  I can't without a doubt prove that anything does NOT exist.  That would require a perfect understanding of, well, everything.  To expect such a thing is ridiculous, especially given that religion changes over time.  If you suggest that there is no evidence of a global flood, no problem, we never believed in a global flood in the first place! (repeat ad naseum).

As for evidence that there is a god, you are right.  There is varying personal experience, and that's it.  This doesn't count for a variety of reasons, that we probably can agree on.  If someone were to tell you that picking up women on a street corner is the ultimate way to find happiness, due to personal experience, you probably wouldn't be inclined to believe them.  It may be all well for them, but it sure won't convince you.

And that is the crux of the problem.  I think most people just invent some fancy philosophy to solve the conundrum, and a wavering minority defend the idea that scientific evidence does exist for spiritual claims.  

Either way, as long as you don't claim knowledge that you can't possibly have, then I have no issue with your beliefs as long as they don't extend past my door.

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

Tell me the functional difference between the two.

If some neolithic man said; Watch out for that really big cat. But what we mean is; Watch out form that Mountain Lion. That is some how functionally different?

[thesometimesaint]

Eldwynn:

2+2 is not equal to 5. So I've just disproved a negative. But I'll grant that in general it is very hard to do.

Science changes over time. Should I discount it simply because of changes?

I'm fine with there really was a prophet Noah, he built a really big boat, and tried to save as much as he could. That from his perspective his whole world was under water. However the Church takes no position of whether it was a Global Flood or not. BTW The Church doesn't take a position on the Pathagorian Therum either, but it is true.

Why should I dismiss personal experience? There is no way for me to prove that my mother loved me, except by my personal experience. Does that mean she didn't? True there is currently no way to prove God by the Scientific Method. However the Scientific Method, however useful, doesn't mean much outside of science.

What a small little world you live in. A whole universe and beyond, but you still want to be confined to a room with a nonexistant door. Further you demand that others stay there.