Nofear Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 A nitpic on your nitpic. The earth is spinning on its axis a little more than 1000 miles per hour. We're just along for the ride. At my latitude, I'm moving at about 768mph. Though, as you say, the equatorial speed is about 1038mph. I chose "over 500mph" as a nice roundish number which was nonetheless far enough North to include most of the inhabited latitudes. 1
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 A nitpic on your nitpic. The earth is spinning on its axis a little more than 1000 miles per hour. It's ~1,000 mph at the equator. Where I am, it's closer to 500. Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Lehi:My good friend it is all relative(to the observer).
mfbukowski Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 It is a profound truth to say that only the theory decides what can be observed. Understanding it will significantly impact one's understanding of science.This is totally the crux of the entire issue; the "vocabulary" we use - the language itself - makes the definitions which make what we call "observations" possible. We cannot "observe" what has not already been given some kind of definition in language, and therefore, in our minds.
Rivers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Science deals more in the realm of probabilities rather than absolute truth. Richard Dawkins and other atheists now argue that God Probably does not exist. But it has also been argued that scientists like Dawkins are going outside their realm of expertise when dealing with the question of whether God exists. The question of the existence of God fits more in the realm philosophy. There are some interesting philosophical questions that make the existence of God seem more reasonable. Edited June 28, 2011 by Rivers
davidhume2000 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 If God is conceived as a real flesh and blood person living on another planet, then the existence of God could be proven scientifically, however, from a scientific point of view the burden of proof would be to collect observational evidence that such a being exists. I believe that this is a widely accepted conception of God among LDS faithful, so proving the existence of God would require a big telescope or a space ship. 1
davidhume2000 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 One other thing: It is absolutely vital to clearly describe any entity or hypothesis to be proven one way or another, and their are innumerable conceptions of God. For example, a God defined as all powerful (can do anything) has been shown to lead to paradox, a result that many think is the most definitive proof that it doesn't exist because it leads to logical inconsistency. Consider that if God can do anything then God should be able to create something to heavy for God to lift, but then God could not do anything, specifically lift that thing. So either God can't create it or can't lift it and either way God is not all powerful.
LeSellers Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) if God can do anything then God should be able to create something to heavy for God to lift, but then God could not do anything, specifically lift that thing. So either God can't create it or can't lift it and either way God is not all powerful.Yeah, yeah. And what happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force? Physicists know both cannot exist, but, when pressed, they come up with an answer. Lehi P.S.: Yes, I know what that answer is. L.S.P.P.S.: And I can make a one-sided piece of paper. I've done it many times. L.S. Edited June 28, 2011 by LeSellers
Loran Blood Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 (edited) Yet.That would have to be understood as a statement of faith, not a critical appraisal of the capabilities of science. In other words, it would be a statement of faith in scientism, as a world view. Edited June 28, 2011 by Loran Blood
davidhume2000 Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Yeah, yeah. And what happens when an immovable object meets an irresistible force? Physicists know both cannot exist, but, when pressed, they come up with an answer. Lehi P.S.: Yes, I know what that answer is. L.S.P.P.S.: And I can make a one-sided piece of paper. I've done it many times. L.S.I don't know of physicists have ever discussing immovable objects and irresistible forces, and I have no idea how that example solves the problem of Omnipotence leading to paradox.Sorry Lehi, you might be kidding, but there are no one-sided pieces of paper.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I don't know of physicists have ever discussing immovable objects and irresistible forces, and I have no idea how that example solves the problem of Omnipotence leading to paradox.Not all paradoxes are impossible to resolve. The two most common, of those that involve God, are the stone too heavy to lift, and the one-sided piece of paper. Sorry Lehi, you might be kidding, but there are no one-sided pieces of paper.Not kidding. I do it all the time as entertainment for my grandchildren and their friends. It's kind of impressive, if I do say so myself. I can even make a solid with only one side and one edge. This one is not easy, but it is still impressive, and expensive. It requires skills I am only marginally master of. Yes, it truly is a one-sided piece of paper, and anyone can do it in a half a minute or less. I sometimes do it in a very formal way, rather than jerry-rigging something, so the result I get is undeniably one-sided and it is a single piece of paper. I can also make a stone large enough that I cannot lift it, but I don't like spending the $20 it costs, so I do this one much less often. However, as I do not hear anyone claiming I am omnipotent, it doesn't prove anything. Lehi
Nathair/|\ Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 It's fairly easy to make a one sided piece of paper as long as it is significantly longer on one axis vs. the other one.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 It's fairly easy to make a one sided piece of paper as long as it is significantly longer on one axis vs. the other one.It's possible even starting with a piece of paper only four times longer than wide. It is easier the longer it might be. Of course, once I show people how to do it, they are much like the people who chided the triumphant Columbus about going west to get east: "nothing easier" they claimed. When he asked them to balance an egg on its end, and they could not do it, he smashed the large end (with the air sac) so that it did, indeed stand on end. Then he said, once it was done, any one could. Lehi
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 If God is conceived as a real flesh and blood person living on another planet, then the existence of God could be proven scientifically, however, from a scientific point of view the burden of proof would be to collect observational evidence that such a being exists. I believe that this is a widely accepted conception of God among LDS faithful, so proving the existence of God would require a big telescope or a space ship.I've recently come to the conclusion that God doesn't have a location in this universe. As part of this conclusion, I also don't believe that any of us have a location in this universe, either. Yes, our bodies are here, but the part of us that is "us" is actually located where God is. What we perceive as our "self", as located in our physical bodies, is actually a particle that is entrained with our actual Self, "located' outside of what we perceive as the Universe. This is pure speculation on my part, but I find the notion quite charming, so that's my story and I am sticking to it.Anyway, if this speculation is true, then there is no way we can prove God exists.
Stargazer Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 I don't know of physicists have ever discussing immovable objects and irresistible forces, and I have no idea how that example solves the problem of Omnipotence leading to paradox.Sorry Lehi, you might be kidding, but there are no one-sided pieces of paper.I take it you've never heard of a Moebius Strip?
rameumptom Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Stargazer is correct. Moebius strip IS a one sided piece of paper.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) I take it you've never heard of a Moebius Strip?Stargazer is correct. Moebius strip IS a one sided piece of paper.Man!!!! You guys take all the fun out of baiting people. This was my joke and you stole the punch line.LehiP.S.: We're still left with the physicists' answer to the quandary of the immovable object and the irresistible force, however. L.S. Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
Jeff K. Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Reminds me of a physics club I once hung out with. They called themselves the Moebius Strippers. They often received the strangest calls for a physics club.
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 A Moebius Strip((paper is a three dimensional object) its depth is just insignificant when compared with its length and width) not withstanding there is no such thing as a two dimensional physical object. Shapes yes, objects no.
Nofear Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Man!!!! You guys take all the fun out of baiting people. This was my joke and you stole the punch line.Just move it to the klein bottle - instead of a strip with 1 edge, we have a surface with only 1 side. We can't make a real one, only an approximation. I made one in my ceramics class in high school.
Nathair/|\ Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 The only one I can't figure out is the rock. I can make lots of things I can't lift, but making living stone of any size is beyond me.
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 (edited) A Moebius Strip((paper is a three dimensional object) its depth is just insignificant when compared with its length and width) not withstanding there is no such thing as a two dimensional physical object. Shapes yes, objects no.Immaterial. The challenge is not to make a two-dimenstional object, but to make a one-sided piece of paper. That's what I hear atheists call for, along with the immovable object and its meeting an irresistible force, and the proverbial rock so heavy etc.As I and others have demonstrated, it is not only possible, but simple, to make a one-sided piece of paper. Lehi Edited June 29, 2011 by LeSellers
LeSellers Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Just move it to the klein bottle - instead of a strip with 1 edge, we have a surface with only 1 side. We can't make a real one, only an approximation. I made one in my ceramics class in high school.Either you did make one, or we cannot. I believe I have seen a real, three-dimensional Klein bottle, but it's been a very long time since if I did. But I have made a three-dimensional object with one side/surface and only one edge. I've even eaten a three-dimensional object with only one side and no edges at all. Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Lehi:Even paper is a three sided object. It is about 0.1 mm thick. Insignificant when compared to its other two dimensions, but it is still there.
Nofear Posted June 29, 2011 Posted June 29, 2011 Either you did make one, or we cannot. I believe I have seen a real, three-dimensional Klein bottle, but it's been a very long time since if I did. It's only an approximation since a true klein bottle can have no boundary but is a closed surface with only one side. This requires that the object pass through itself without touching. We approximate it by putting a hole in the surface -- but that hole creates a boundary. So, it's not a true klein bottle. But, if we point our finger and say, "If this part passed through itself without touching itself then it would be a true klein bottle."PS: thesometimesaint... one side, one boundary constitutes a möbius strip -- for all practical purposes the thickness of the paper is irrelevant unless one wants to assert that the thickness of the paper constitutes a "side" in which case we have cleverly constructed 4 true möbius strips and put them together.
Recommended Posts