Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 174 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#54108 - 07/06/15 02:09 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Bill]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill
What you can actually count on is what really matters.
Bill Gill

Death and taxes? Anything else is really up for the potential of any belief system and its possible outcomes.

The way the Muslims are populating the planet, they will become the majority in a few years.

The real world is only sold as a story and subscribed to. Then it (the subscription) changes, and changes again according to belief in the authority (authors) who dictate reality.

Do you consider yourself an authoritative person who sets the rules, or one who simply follows the rules within the real world as it is prescribed by the authority and assumed by the majority? smile
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
.
#54109 - 07/06/15 02:45 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
With my background I love comments like this TT and so lets see how far you go into the pandora's box.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
The real world is only sold as a story and subscribed to. Then it (the subscription) changes, and changes again according to belief in the authority (authors) who dictate reality.

1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

In my interest area of science I get asked those 4 questions in very different ways. The askers don't realize what they are asking but they boil down to the same things smile

Don't be hard on Bill G he kicks and screams but he gets there in the end if you can get him to really think. Take solace in the fact you were not the one trying to explain that there are infinite numbers 1 unit away from any coordinate on a 2D axis system that uses real numbers, and hence infinite ways to count +1 on that system, when he had it set in his head it's not so ... what a mission.

I was going to give him the second version we usually give to kids as a bit of fun and make a point about infinities but didn't have the strength at the end .... for humour as you will get it instantly (and probably the why) it goes like this

Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct?

It's actually the mathematical equivalent of the question above and something you hope with intelligence they can figure out smile


Edited by Orac (07/06/15 04:47 PM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54113 - 07/06/15 09:28 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct?


Obviously it is correct because 2 is greater than one.

On the other hand they both have the cardinality "Aleph null", so they are the same size.

The answer must be a clear "yes and no"
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54115 - 07/07/15 01:16 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac

1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

I think that would depend on who you ask. What's it mean to you? Do you make a determination via your own thoughts, or do you take the position of someone you give authority to?

Originally Posted By: Orac

2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?
Is there a difference between God and process? Did you have a definition of God that you wanted specifically driven into the boundaries of the question?

Originally Posted By: Orac

3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Yes wink Oh.. did we define God yet?

Originally Posted By: Orac

4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Again it would depend on who you ask. For one thing, everyone sees the world and defines reality thru their own unique nervous system regardless of any similarities and democratic determinations. So the question could be generally asked of any group of people in any social atmosphere or specifically to any one individual within their experience of life and their belief system, whether it be philosophically derived, or thru experience and study.


Originally Posted By: Orac

In my interest area of science I get asked those 4 questions in very different ways. The askers don't realize what they are asking but they boil down to the same things smile

Don't be hard on Bill G he kicks and screams but he gets there in the end if you can get him to really think. Take solace in the fact you were not the one trying to explain that there are infinite numbers 1 unit away from any coordinate on a 2D axis system that uses real numbers, and hence infinite ways to count +1 on that system, when he had it set in his head it's not so ... what a mission.

I was going to give him the second version we usually give to kids as a bit of fun and make a point about infinities but didn't have the strength at the end .... for humour as you will get it instantly (and probably the why) it goes like this

Quote:
There are an infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 1. There are also infinite number of fractions and irrationals between zero and 2. Since two is greater than one, then the infinity between 0 and 2 must be greater than the infinity between 0 and 1 is that correct? It's actually the mathematical equivalent of the question above and something you hope with intelligence they can figure out smile
I'm not a mathematician but, the idea of infinity should be considered prior to the question. I would see it as a an abstract potential, without boundaries..
Unless you decide it isn't, once you've put your own ideas in place another would actually have to meet you where you are at, to answer the question to your satisfaction.

If I were to determine infinity to be infinity regardless of any circumstances then there is no difference between the idea of 0 and 1 or 0 and 2. An infinite number is an infinite number without any limits to their possibilities. The only difference is in the question when suggesting the theoretical reference points of 0,1&2 as a known.
I would also suggest that if there is an infinite number of whatever between these reference points that neither is greater than another, but simply different. Only when thinking in an ascending thought pattern thru numbers would 2 be further up the ladder but when descending and having 0 as the end result or goal does 0 become the future and the number two become the past.
I realize this wouldn't probably float a mathematicians boat. When adding numbers and determining value by amount it probably won't work. whistle Ah well....
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54122 - 07/07/15 05:13 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
You do like to avoid answering anything don't you TT is there some fear you have?

Not an issue to me as always I will answer any questions, so I guess I will answer my own.

Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

To me I take a very different definition to what many in biological sciences would take that is the ability to excercise choice or free will so I exclude many simple thing that biology would consider alive. Someone like Bill G would see this as heresy because that isn't what standard science says. My response is we know classical physics is wrong so why do we cling to these classical science notions of what life is, no science is damaged by simply refining.

When we look at say NASA and how it tries to define life
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

We get a messy definition where you are trying to split hairs over crystals, virus, proteins, RNA etc.

To me none of that is important the question to me is can the item to be classified make a choice which it self controls.

Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?

Defined as I do above the process of choice defines alive and the question of GOD existing or not is mute.

Originally Posted By: Orac
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Making choices defines reality which is in exact alignment with what QM as a science says and belief in GOD is one of those choices.

Originally Posted By: Orac
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Probably the most difficult question but I pretty much reject all the standard religion answers like good vs evil as trash. I can't see the logic of how torturing people thru some sort of trial somehow selects the good ones and it doesn't fit with a god who knows all and is merciful. I think the Romans tried all that stuff in there colosseum and we view them as barbaric.

So if I exclude GOD as a choice I must look to the more mundane science answers. The most likely driver will be the usual suspect "Energy" and it's partner in crime will be QM. The difficult part taking this approach is ultimately deciding if we simply have an initiated start point and then choice and chance takes over or does the drive persist. To me it is entirely possible and likely it is a mixture of the two. Again it's not a very standard biological science version but nor is it in direct conflict with the standard ideas.

Originally Posted By: TT
I'm not a mathematician but, the idea of infinity should be considered prior to the question. I would see it as a an abstract potential, without boundaries..
Unless you decide it isn't, once you've put your own ideas in place another would actually have to meet you where you are at, to answer the question to your satisfaction.

That is actually the point of asking the question because it forces the issue on what definition.

Originally Posted By: TT
I realize this wouldn't probably float a mathematicians boat. When adding numbers and determining value by amount it probably won't work. whistle Ah well....

To me it's all perfectly reasonable and it wouldn't be a problem with true mathematician because you got actually very very close to a complete answer ... Bill G would probably have kittens along with some school grade maths teachers. I think it is funny you thought it might be judged wrong. It all works correctly in all situations by the way.

You actually got the point the numbers 1 & 2 are different yes and you realized that "greater than" requires a number of subjective decisions not least on direction.

In maths/physics terms like "greater than" is called a "relational operator".

You sort of half got that the other part of the problem with relational operators don't necessarily work with all numbers which includes infinity because they are subjective constructions.

Most average people get the question as a focus on the problem with defining infinity. The really switched on ones and what you did was realize it actually brings into focus what does bigger/smaller/greater/lesser actually mean and that the problem may not actually be the infinity.

Most finally get the problem if I turn the problem to a race or a list and they find they have to put 1 as bigger/better/greater than 2 smile

You certainly did a lot better than most do with the question and that sets you as a constructive thinker and short of giving the "standard term names" you thought your way thru it really well by not assuming anything.

Given your thought processes I will give you a bonus question which you may be able to work thru.

Bonus Question: Identify reasons a relational operator might not work with specific number choices.
Start point hint: Mathematical operators +,-,*,/ result in different sorts of answers than relational operators. Extend the thought to input and outputs.

Where were you when I was trying to do complex number counting with Bill G you would have got it in seconds smile


Edited by Orac (07/07/15 09:04 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54126 - 07/07/15 05:55 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac
You do like to avoid answering anything don't you TT is there some fear you have?

I always answer every question. Some just don't like waiting for it or get frustrated with the answer I give to derive more information regarding the question. wink

Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
1.) So if reality is a story what does it mean to be alive?

To me I take a very different definition to what many in biological sciences would take that is the ability to excercise choice or free will so I exclude many simple thing that biology would consider alive. Someone like Bill G would see this as heresy because that isn't what standard science says. My response is we know classical physics is wrong so why do we cling to these classical science notions of what life is, no science is damaged by simply refining.

When we look at say NASA and how it tries to define life
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/life's_working_definition.html

We get a messy definition where you are trying to split hairs over crystals, virus, proteins, RNA etc.

To me none of that is important the question to me is can the item to be classified make a choice which it self controls.

I think control is something the ego loves to attach itself to. One can make choices within the context of awareness and comprehensive understanding of ones relationship with the reality in which one exists. Within the constructs of relative boundaries there are possible outcomes and probable outcomes.
Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness. From the dream world to the relative, all activity is projection of mind (not speaking of the physical brain).
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
2.) Who defines the state of being alive GOD or a process?

Defined as I do above the process of choice defines alive and the question of GOD existing or not is mute.
Don't you mean moot? God as a subjective reality is simply included within the process of choice. To give the activity of choice and how it exists or how it is created is inclusive of a force that has such a name as "God" attached. Philosophically it is much more than an idea held within the relative boundaries of the ego as it creates a definition within the boundaries of personal belief, the choices derived from belief and the boundaries projected upon such a name as they are assimilated thru the limited ideas of personal identity.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
3.) Is the reality defined for you or does GOD or something/someone make the reality?

Making choices defines reality which is in exact alignment with what QM as a science says and belief in GOD is one of those choices.

Yet it seems the idea of God and personal choice as science explains it, are separate and mutually exclusive. Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.
Ironically spiritual science doesn't give belief much weight either, since it isn't stable (being that it is easily influenced by fear and other emotions) and constantly evolves or changes.
Originally Posted By: Orac

Originally Posted By: Orac
4.) What is the purpose of the reality and it's cosplay.

Probably the most difficult question but I pretty much reject all the standard religion answers like good vs evil as trash. I can't see the logic of how torturing people thru some sort of trial somehow selects the good ones and it doesn't fit with a god who knows all and is merciful. I think the Romans tried all that stuff in there colosseum and we view them as barbaric.

So if I exclude GOD as a choice I must look to the more mundane science answers. The most likely driver will be the usual suspect "Energy" and it's partner in crime will be QM. The difficult part taking this approach is ultimately deciding if we simply have an initiated start point and then choice and chance takes over or does the drive persist. To me it is entirely possible and likely it is a mixture of the two. Again it's not a very standard biological science version but nor is it in direct conflict with the standard ideas.

Purpose is relative. The simple mechanics of energy is that if it is a source or has a source, whatever manufactures it or whatever it is, it has an effect upon whatever it touches. So one may ask why does an apple fall to the ground when detached from the tree, then someone like Newton can come up with an idea regarding gravity.
Within the relative there are natural laws. Outside relative laws there are other laws of nature to govern the mechanics of other types of realities.
Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.

In the approach spiritual sciences takes, one simply empties the baggage to allow communion at a different level than the physical approach using only the eyes which sometimes are inefficient, or the sense of smell, which is often linked to subconscious memory and stress, or any of the other senses which can be unreliable due to conditioning.
Then the process is one of expansion upon first impression, to spend enough time with whatever subjective point of interest is focused upon to gather information to stabilize the probable understanding. Being that the philosophical approach can extend itself thru lifetimes, there is no one idea that is pasted upon any object of study, being that (like the infinite possible fractions of understanding between 0 and 1) any approach in any moment can carry a different outcome. There is no such thing as a single moment in time or one single approach to anything that is the same approach. There is a saying: "you can never step into a river at the same place at any time", being that the river is constantly moving and changing.

Originally Posted By: Orac

Given your thought processes I will give you a bonus question which you may be able to work thru.

Bonus Question: Identify reasons a relational operator might not work with specific number choices.
Start point hint: Mathematical operators +,-,*,/ result in different sorts of answers than relational operators. Extend the thought to input and outputs.

I think I might have already explained that in the description of the river.
If one expects that their start and stop points are exactly the same, there is no room to see any variance or to expand upon a single idea. You would be locked within the confines of belief, which is actually the idea around the analogy of the "Heavy Stone". Consciousness is infinite in potential, yet the ego would define itself within the parameters of its personal reality and the senses as they have been conditioned or trained to operate.
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.

When discussing relationship (as in the relational operator) any individual having a personal relationship that can't be squeezed into the boundaries of specific choices and probable outcomes (especially those not experienced or understood) will not be able to function as expected. Such a person would be a wild card when producing expected outcomes.

That would be one way I would answer the question by my way of understanding of it. Give me a day or so and I might give you a completely different answer. blush
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54128 - 07/07/15 06:46 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54130 - 07/08/15 01:24 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile

I usually find that the "keep it short" law only exists where there is a need for instant gratification, a short attention span, or as an excuse to justify a dislike for someone and or their points of view.
The reverend uses that same law when judging me, then proceeds to write a book about himself and whatever interests him.
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete. Like a penis when it comes to most women. cry And somethings are just too big to swallow for others.. shocked I guess it just depends on the person giving, and the one receiving.

Like Lincoln said: "You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but ya can't please all of the people all of the time." grin

Isn't this in the not quite science section of the forum?
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings. wink

So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?

If'n you were looking for scientific value then you'd be "Lookin fer love in all the wrong places..." (American country western song don'tcha know) laugh

_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54131 - 07/08/15 02:06 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
I usually find that the keep it short law only exists where there is a need for instant gratification, a short attention span, or as an excuse to justify a dislike for someone and or their points of view.


This suggests a paucity of experience that belies your flamboyant verbosity. My own feeling is that there is scope for both the brief and the expanded. Any belief that I belittled either is in the mind of the interpreter.

Quote:
So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?


Interesting that you seem to have interpreted what I said as indicating that I value other things less than science. Look again, you will find I didn’t say that.

Quote:
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete.


Suggesting that I might have been advocating anything incomplete is entirely your invention. I wonder why you needed to do that.

Quote:
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings.


Perhaps guesswork is not your forte. smile I would certainly not have imagined that the significance of “Just a thought” would be outside the range of your understanding. I shall charitably infer that your various misinterpretations were deliberate.

I trust this post is long enough to evade your disapprobation. smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54132 - 07/08/15 05:39 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Life to me is the activity generated by consciousness.

We are actually very close on definition because I would say without consciousness one can not make choice.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Mostly the argument is rallied around the superstition that is religion, which has no hard evidence but is simply evident as "belief", which science doesn't take very seriously.

Unfortunately it can't take it seriously because it would require a personal judgement rather than an analytical judgement.
No-one claims the process is perfect but it is objective in it's operation which is the intent.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Purpose is relative.

...snip

Why is simply a question. Answers are derived from the approach, and what kind of baggage the mind making the inquiry carries to create or derive reason.

Correct and sciences purpose is to make knowledge useful it isn't to provide the answer to the meaning of life etc.
Some in science and many outside it forget that at times or go for over reach.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
Science as you defined it being a blunt instrument is fixed within the boundaries of what can be studied and measured by instruments derived from a particular understanding of reality and the relationship of mind to the beliefs of that reality. Like putting blinders on a horse it can only see where it is pointed or designed to be pointed. It (science) will ignore what it cannot see, or that which does not fit within the field of vision.

And I like it like that because it fits the purpose I use it for smile

If you want the "meaning of life" type stuff you need a different discipline .... so ... make one.

That is the bit I am hard on Rev K and you over, why harp on about converting science it is working just fine as is.
If you want to see what science looks like if you start allowing "interpretation" take a look at state of climate science.

What I see is science has gained a certain place and recognition in society.
So when people come along and want to convert it then really it comes down to 3 reasons

a) They want that recognition
b) They can't get enough interest in there ideas as a stand alone discipline
c) Findings conflict with beliefs and it is causing problems in the wider general audience.

So I guess my question to you if you reject your reasons are in the 3 above, why do you want science to change?


Edited by Orac (07/08/15 07:49 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
#54136 - 07/08/15 01:48 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Orac]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Orac


So I guess my question to you if you reject your reasons are in the 3 above, why do you want science to change?

Who said I wanted it to change? Aren't we just having a discussion based on the questions set forward in the discussion?

Any change (if necessary) will come with greater awareness of how vision is narrowed because of prejudice and ignorance. That is true whether it be science or any other system.

I can only play my part in the activities of life, I have no interest in being the spokesperson for mankind or God. Tho if someone wants to give me the job or accuse me of that, it's not my fault! wink Free will and all... people get to believe what they wanna believe.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54137 - 07/08/15 02:23 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.


This suggests a paucity of experience that belies your flamboyant verbosity.
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses (ref. the flamboyant verbosity thing).

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My own feeling is that there is scope for both the brief and the expanded.
Then, obviously the note:
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
SAGG's Law.

The scientific value of a post is inversely proportional to the length of the post.

Just a thought. smile
was just a jab that had risen from the irritation you felt (due to the paucity of my flamboyance and verbose nature) and you weren't serious about the scientific value thing.
OK then "whew".. I'm relieved! whistle


Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Any belief that I belittled either is in the mind of the interpreter.

True. I did say that my familiarity with such a rule for brevity included judgment, a short attention span, and the need for instant gratification.
So in your defense, I accept that you weren't trying to belittle me, regardless of whether you were irritated by my flamboyance and verbose nature. smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
So what did you want to get out of this not quite science thread that you seem to frequent? Something scientific or something less valuable?


Interesting that you seem to have interpreted what I said as indicating that I value other things less than science. Look again, you will find I didn’t say that.

Not in so many words no. You just intimated that scientific value is in brevity and that it was a law of this forum. I just took liberties with your judgment regarding flamboyance and verbosity, even tho it was a meaningless statement, as you have eluded to that fact and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap. wink


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Some things just aren't very valuable to some, when they are short and incomplete.


Suggesting that I might have been advocating anything incomplete is entirely your invention. I wonder why you needed to do that.

I didn't that would be entirely your idea. smile


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I would guess then (since it has in your mind little scientific value) that it means whatever value it has, is proportionately valuable to ones interest in anything not defined within the scientific subheadings.


Perhaps guesswork is not your forte. smile I would certainly not have imagined that the significance of “Just a thought” would be outside the range of your understanding. I shall charitably infer that your various misinterpretations were deliberate.

So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted... interesting don'tcha think? shocked


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

I trust this post is long enough to evade your disapprobation. smile

I think your trust levels are a bit shielded. cool
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54138 - 07/08/15 08:53 PM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: TT
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses


You apparently assume my post was directed personally towards you. A touch of conceit there, perhaps.

Quote:
just a jab that had risen from the irritation you felt


Interesting, and perhaps enlightening, that you select “irritation”, rather than, say, humour, in your quest for the provenance of my comment. This in spite of my addition of an emoticon for the guidance of any who might lack sufficient perspicacity.

Quote:
Not in so many words no.


So, just in the imagination of the interpreter.

Quote:
I just took liberties with your judgment….


Thank you for the admission.

Quote:
…. and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap


I do my best to allocate appropriately.

Quote:
I didn't that would be entirely your idea.


I’m not being drawn into that sort of “schoolyard” exchange. In fact. I’m a little surprised that you find the need to go there.

Quote:
So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted...


It causes me no particular problem, misinterpretations often confer insights.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#54140 - 07/09/15 01:07 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Or its just a hunch that you had some judgment about me and my responses


You apparently assume my post was directed personally towards you. A touch of conceit there, perhaps.

Well, since you made a personal reference towards me using the words "flamboyant verbosity", I figured I was at least included in your judgment of scientific worthiness. Did I miss something?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Interesting, and perhaps enlightening, that you select “irritation”, rather than, say, humour, in your quest for the provenance of my comment. This in spite of my addition of an emoticon for the guidance of any who might lack sufficient perspicacity.

You have heard of sarcasm, plus after witnessing your frustration with Orac, and after the warning you gave regarding any battles with words, I'd say it's a safe determination. And as you said, its all in the interpretation. Care to persuade me in a more convincing manner that I'm wrong?

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Not in so many words no.


So, just in the imagination of the interpreter.

I guess your just transparent, or you lack an ability to convey your message clearly, without leaving your comments open to loose interpretation. smile

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I just took liberties with your judgment….


Thank you for the admission.

No problem, thanks for not denying the judgment.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
…. and are now putting any interpretation entirely in my lap


I do my best to allocate appropriately.

As in the reference to flamboyant verbosity as it was directed towards me and the reference to scientific worth as well? shocked

Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
I didn't that would be entirely your idea.


I’m not being drawn into that sort of “schoolyard” exchange. In fact. I’m a little surprised that you find the need to go there.

Whattya mean. You started it! shocked


Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
So we both have this problem of being misinterpreted...

misinterpretations often confer insights.
So does a fib. grin
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#54144 - 07/09/15 06:04 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
God is not a metaphorical construction of human minds.
To create the Universe God was needed Physical laws and formulas.
In my opinion God created the Universe by this plan:
The God's Code of Nature.
=.
§1. Vacuum: T= 0K, E= &#8734; , p = 0, t =&#8734; .
§ 2. Particles: C/D= pi=3,14, R/N=k, E/M=c^2, h=0, c=0, i^2=-1.
§ 3. Photon: h=E/t, h=kb, h=1, c=1.
§ 4. Electron: h*=h/2pi, c>1, E=h*f , e^2=ach* .
§ 5. Gravity, Star formation: h*f = kTlogW : He II -- > He I -- > H-- > . . .
§ 6. Proton: (p).
§ 7. The evolution of interaction between Photon / Electron and Proton:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
§ 8. The Physical Laws:
a) Law of Conservation and Transformation Energy/ Mass,
b) Pauli Exclusion Law,
c) Heisenberg Uncertainty Law.
§ 9. Brain: Dualism of Consciousness.
§ 10. Test and Practice: Parapsychology. Meditation.
===.
God is a Great code–maker.
But, as every code, God's code also can be cracked with the right key.
In my opinion the right key has two formulas.
The one is - T = - 273, 15. . . .
The second is – c/d= 3,14 . . . .
Using this key somebody, after strict analysis, can discover
who God is,
where God is,
how the God create the Existence.
=========….
The secret of God, Soul and Existence is hidden in
"The theory of Vacuum and Quantum of Light".
=========..
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====…

Top
#54145 - 07/09/15 06:08 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
socratus Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 06/20/08
Posts: 415
God must begin his creation in some reference frame and must use
some quantum particles which have some geometrical form.
a) For the basis of RF I took the zero vacuum T=0K.
b) According to the laws of thermodynamics the particles in T=0K
must have geometrical form of circle: c/d = 3,14 . . . . (pi)
c) According to QT the circle-particles have two (2) kind of own,
inner impulses: h and h*=h/2pi.
These impulses changed the pure zero vacuum continuum.
=..
Today scientists ignore T=0K as a RF of the Universe as a whole.
Today scientists don't know the geometrical form of quantum particles.
Tomorrow the situation will be another.
===…

Top
#54146 - 07/09/15 06:19 AM Re: God 's power and the "heavy stone" [Re: socratus]
Orac Offline
Megastar

Registered: 05/20/11
Posts: 2819
Loc: Currently Illinois, USA
Originally Posted By: socratus
God must begin his creation in some reference frame and must use
some quantum particles which have some geometrical form.

So did GOD have another GOD that made it then socratus as GOD needs a reference frame, some particles and a form?

Originally Posted By: socratus
Tomorrow the situation will be another.

By design .... as will religion smile

Probably need to find something more profound than that to say laugh


Edited by Orac (07/09/15 06:26 AM)
_________________________
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.