1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
That is right I'm unwilling to accept something you tell me, just because you tell it to me! I'm unwilling to accept your point of view just because you read a book, show me why or walk away knowing you cannot. If it isn't opinion, display here why, shouldn't be hard, except when you start to talk about it all, you immediately have to say you cannot talk ab s as if my disagreeing with you for whatever reason means I must be insulted by you.
Kelly
Can you, at least, understand why scottish gets so frustrated with you? People have and do spend a lifetime studying physics, even just small branches of it, and still have more to learn the day they die. You show up with just enough undertanding to be dangerous and start poking holes in theories you could not possibly fully understand (not because you are not capable but because you have not studied). While scottish typically does a fine job refuting many of your objections he cannot possibly be expected to provide you with an education on the subject, that would take years to get even at a university.
I'm not saying everything he says is right, I'm not even saying everything physicists believe about the world is right and I'm not suggesting that you must be wrong simply because you do not have all (or even a fraction of) the knowledge most physicists do. All I'm saying is that it is difficult for me to understand how you expect to be taken seriously when you write three paragraphs that you think calls into question literally thousands of entire books written by experts in the field. Don't you feel the least bit arrogant?
TheSkipper
3 edits
Originally posted by TheSkipperI'm guessing you have never heard of the emperor's new clothes story then?
Kelly,
Can you, at least, understand why scottish gets so frustrated with you? People have and do spend a lifetime studying physics, even just small branches of it, and still have more to learn the day they die. You show up with just enough undertanding to be dangerous and start poking holes in theories you could not possibly fully understand (not be ooks written by experts in the field. Don't you feel the least bit arrogant?
TheSkipper
Also, the argument you have made here could equally be said of spirituality. Infact the contemplation of the eternal and spiritual has been going on far longer than the study of theoretical physics .If me and kelly were to defer to this expertise instead of thinking for ourselves we would be slated by scotty and his ilke.
If I said to scotty " but there has been so much written by mystics about God for centuries and centuries , people have given their lives over to it and still not gotten to the bottom of it blah blah blah....therefore accept it as truth." ....what do you think he would say?
Originally posted by KellyJayThe model is called the Theory of Relativity. It's precisely what you are talking about here - even if you don't know that. I've told you now, and several times before, that this is what you are discussing, so it's up to you to go educate yourself, especially when we back our stuff up with weblinks and the like. Something you spectacularly fail to do.
That is right I'm unwilling to accept something you tell me, just because you tell it to me! I'm unwilling to accept your point of view just because you read a book, show me why or walk away knowing you cannot. If it isn't opinion, display here why, shouldn't be hard, except when you start to talk about it all, you immediately have to say you cannot talk ab ...[text shortened]... s as if my disagreeing with you for whatever reason means I must be insulted by you.
Kelly
This discussion has got nothing more than your laziness and lack of willing to read quoted material at the core.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'd say something like "give me a testable hypothesis that proves the existence of God, and I'll give you a testable hypothesis which proves the veracity of the Theory of Relativity."
I'm guessing you have never heard of the emperor's new clothes story then?
Also, the argument you have made here could equally be said of spirituality. Infact the contemplation of the eternal and spiritual has been going on far longer than the study of theoretical physics .If me and kelly were to defer to this expertise instead of thinking for ourse ...[text shortened]... m of it blah blah blah....therefore accept it as truth." ....what do you think he would say?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzGive me something to prove that time and matter were started at the same time! We can see the relationship in the here and now; however, that does not speak to when they both began, only that they have a relationship in the here and now. Just a little something we can test, you know, back up your opinion!
I'd say something like "give me a testable hypothesis that proves the existence of God, and I'll give you a testable hypothesis which proves the veracity of the Theory of Relativity."
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzI would tell you I cannot do that, only God can prove God, I have faith, which is so far as I can tell all you have when it comes to the beginning and the BB as well.
I'd say something like "give me a testable hypothesis that proves the existence of God, and I'll give you a testable hypothesis which proves the veracity of the Theory of Relativity."
Kelly
Originally posted by TheSkipper"Don't you feel the least bit arrogant? "
Kelly,
Can you, at least, understand why scottish gets so frustrated with you? People have and do spend a lifetime studying physics, even just small branches of it, and still have more to learn the day they die. You show up with just enough undertanding to be dangerous and start poking holes in theories you could not possibly fully understand (not be ...[text shortened]... ooks written by experts in the field. Don't you feel the least bit arrogant?
TheSkipper
Nope, he may be frustrated, but that is his problem, not mine! If he would say we don't know, it is only believed to be true, I'd back down, but instead I get this "there cannot be time before the BB" as if that were provable, which it isn't! It can be someone's opinion, but neither Scott nor anyone else here has yet as shown it as true, they have only declared it as such, and want me to accept their opinion as fact, which I will not do. I don’t except others to do that when I’m giving my opinion, why should I do it when they express their opinion?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/minkowski.html
Give me something to prove that time and matter were started at the same time! We can see the relationship in the here and now; however, that does not speak to when they both began, only that they have a relationship in the here and now. Just a little something we can test, you know, back up your opinion!
Kelly
Doubt you'll read it though
[edit; and you'll want this one too, to link it together;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose-Hawking_singularity_theorems ]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI could give you a testable hypothesis but it wouldn't be one that you would accept because you think the only way that something can be proved is scientifically.
I'd say something like "give me a testable hypothesis that proves the existence of God, and I'll give you a testable hypothesis which proves the veracity of the Theory of Relativity."
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo , it is a testable hypothesis. Our lives are the test. When the Bible says we can "know" God it doesn't mean in the way that we in the scientifically dominated west mean it. It means we can know God intimately in the same way that we can know our partner or know ourselves. It's knowledge that can't be shoved in a test tube but it's equally valid and testable for anyone who gives it a try and there are all sorts of predictions that can be tested personally. The problem is we over emphasize objective "proof" and undervalue intimacy and personal knowledge.
So it's not a testable hypothesis then.
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo it's not a testable proof, but is merely an opinion.
No , it is a testable hypothesis. Our lives are the test. When the Bible says we can "know" God it doesn't mean in the way that we in the scientifically dominated west mean it. It means we can know God intimately in the same way that we can know our partner or know ourselves. It's knowledge that can't be shoved in a test tube but it's equally valid and ...[text shortened]... m is we over emphasize objective "proof" and undervalue intimacy and personal knowledge.