Physics.......Dead body heavier than live body

Originally posted by Dasa
The point I am making is that science will not submit to authority.

that's a laugh. if science submitted to authority, it would be as ineffectual as religion!

the last thing science needs is someone coming along and proclaiming "this is this and that is that" without an iota of evidence and expecting everyone to fall in line and believe it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that's a laugh. if science submitted to authority, it would be as ineffectual as religion!

the last thing science needs is someone coming along and proclaiming "this is this and that is that" without an iota of evidence and expecting everyone to fall in line and believe it.

Kind of like science in the former Soviet Union. And music. And dance. And theater. There is a pattern here......

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that's a laugh. if science submitted to authority, it would be as ineffectual as religion!

the last thing science needs is someone coming along and proclaiming "this is this and that is that" without an iota of evidence and expecting everyone to fall in line and believe it.

Science does submit to authority.

When the scientist wants to learn something lets say how to fix his car he goes to the authority of his car manual to learn.

But he rejects the spiritual authority of the Veda because he is dishonest even though his mathematics is coming from the Veda.

He picks and chooses whimsically.

This is not science.

Its is musical chairs and is dishonest.

Originally posted by Dasa
The point I am making is that science will not submit to authority.

They reject authority because they believe falsely they are the authority.

When it comes to origins they have no authority because of dishonesty.

The dead body is heavier because when the soul is present in the live body by its all pervading spiritual energy it gives lightness to the b ...[text shortened]... se the soul is the living force the dead body lives.

Without the soul the body will not live.

The Unbearable Lightness Of Being
demands your attention.
Your fellows leave so easily,
and so inevitably. And so will you.
You can get past it now, or later,
but you will get past it. It might be
by telling yourself a satisfying story,
or it might be by leaving.
But you will get past it.
Rest assured.

Originally posted by Dasa
Science does submit to authority.

When the scientist wants to learn something lets say how to fix his car he goes to the authority of his car manual to learn.

But he rejects the spiritual authority of the Veda because he is dishonest even though his mathematics is coming from the Veda.

He picks and chooses whimsically.

This is not science.

Its is musical chairs and is dishonest.

nope. he goes to the car manual to learn and then experiments on his car. if the manual proved to be inaccurate, he will toss it out with the trash next pick-up day. if it is accurate, the scientist will then apply what he learned from the manual to expand his knowledge and experiment on more techniques for efficient car repair.

if he submit to authority, and the car was not fixed by the methods outlined in the manual, he would call the car a heretic and get a new car.

science does not depend on authority. it depends on observation and experimentation. in fact, of the two methods of expanding knowledge, the scientific method is far superior to channeling.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
nope. he goes to the car manual to learn and then experiments on his car. if the manual proved to be inaccurate, he will toss it out with the trash next pick-up day. if it is accurate, the scientist will then apply what he learned from the manual to expand his knowledge and experiment on more techniques for efficient car repair.

if he submit to auth ...[text shortened]... of the two methods of expanding knowledge, the scientific method is far superior to channeling.

Cheating science is dishonest with its experiment and observations because everywhere you look we see life coming from life ............and we never ever ever see life coming from non life but they say life comes from non life.

By observation we never ever see anything created by an explosion but cheating science will tell us that this complex cosmos and conscious life appeared from the big bang.

Your science is dishonest science not observing correctly and turning away from the observations that it is suppose to study.

Its all nonsense.

Originally posted by Dasa
[b]Cheating science is dishonest with its experiment and observations because everywhere you look we see life coming from life ............and we never ever ever see life coming from non life but they say life comes from non life.

so you have one of two assumptions:
at some point, life came from non-life.
life has always been around.

but modern science bases their assumption on what is known about the beginning of the cosmos, while you base it only on your limited perception of life on earth starting from the year that you were born to it.

By observation we never ever see anything created by an explosion but cheating science will tell us that this complex cosmos and conscious life appeared from the big bang.

Your science is dishonest science not observing correctly and turning away from the observations that it is suppose to study.

Its all nonsense.

you accuse science of cheating, yet this is a misrepresentation of claims made by science. you talk nonsense and you're dishonest. you have no moral nor intellectual credibility to comment on scientific theory.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Kind of like science in the former Soviet Union. And music. And dance. And theater. There is a pattern here......

The Soviet Union had several prominent scientists and many of them made very significant contributions.

Mendeleev is one obvious scientist amoung hundreds of others.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit

Originally posted by Dasa
[b]Cheating science is dishonest with its experiment and observations because everywhere you look we see life coming from life ............and we never ever ever see life coming from non life but they say life comes from non life.

so you have one of two assumptions:
at some point, life came from non-lif ...[text shortened]... 're dishonest. you have no moral nor intellectual credibility to comment on scientific theory.

Modern science knows nothing about the beginning of the cosmos.

They only know what they fabricated.

And what they fabricate is make believe.

I cannot discuss this with you where dishonesty is the rule.....its impossible.

Originally posted by Dasa
Modern science knows nothing about the beginning of the cosmos.

They only know what they fabricated.

And what they fabricate is make believe.

I cannot discuss this with you where dishonesty is the rule.....its impossible.

agreed. when you decide to become honest, get back to me and we'll conclude this discussion.

Originally posted by mlprior
The Soviet Union had several prominent scientists and many of them made very significant contributions.

Mendeleev is one obvious scientist amoung hundreds of others.

I was talking more about the political control of science and art, you know the Soviets controlled who wrote what kind of music, what kind of opera's, they had to follow the party line. If a particular science didn't seem to fit the Soviet dogma, it was trashed.

Of course there were still discoveries and developments but the Soviet union made everything so secret, there was little interaction among colleagues.

That kind of mentality is hard to digest in this day and age of the net and such.

Originally posted by Dasa
Science does submit to authority.

When the scientist wants to learn something lets say how to fix his car he goes to the authority of his car manual to learn.

But he rejects the spiritual authority of the Veda because he is dishonest even though his mathematics is coming from the Veda.

He picks and chooses whimsically.

This is not science.

Its is musical chairs and is dishonest.

So I gather you would refuse any kind of proven treatment for some disease or other if you thought that cure came from dishonest science? You would rather die than suffer a dishonest cure?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So I gather you would refuse any kind of proven treatment for some disease or other if you thought that cure came from dishonest science? You would rather die than suffer a dishonest cure?

Throwing this red herring into what where are talking about is just more dishonesty.

Your struggling to make sense and so you just talk more nonsense.

This is what atheism is all about dishonest rubbish talk.

Originally posted by Dasa
Throwing this red herring into what where are talking about is just more dishonesty.

Your struggling to make sense and so you just talk more nonsense.

This is what atheism is all about dishonest rubbish talk.

That is not a red herring, you already said words to that effect. I just wanted you to verify what you already said.

Originally posted by mlprior
The Soviet Union had several prominent scientists and many of them made very significant contributions.

Mendeleev is one obvious scientist amoung hundreds of others.

Erm... if I were you, I'd check your dates. Mendeleev died in 1907.

The most famous Soviet scientist was probably Lysenko. Good track record, that. He'd get along quite well with Dasa.

Richard