- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PudgenikNewtonain Physics.
Ok mister laws of physics. Explain why a bumble bee flies?
Air is forced downwards creating thrust, and there is consequently an equal
and opposite reaction upwards which supports the bee.
Why... Did you think that was an unsolved problem?
Originally posted by googlefudgePresently there is some new technology to bend light. It was presented on a science show, also shown on tv. This new tech will be able to make tanks seem invisible even if you were standing next to them.
I don't care what you read, making a ship totally invisible by bending light
around it by bending space time is not possible.
Either technologically or theoretically.
I remember how Star Trek technology seemed so far fetched years ago. Yet many of the devices are now being used, like lasers.
Steven Hawkens proposed the idea that black holes will bend not only light but time as well.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by PudgenikYeah, I trained as a physicist and so unlike you I actually know what I am talking about.
Presently there is some new technology to bend light. It was presented on a science show, also shown on tv. This new tech will be able to make tanks seem invisible even if you were standing next to them.
I remember how Star Trek technology seemed so far fetched years ago. Yet many of the devices are now being used, like lasers.
Steven Hawkens proposed the idea that black holes will bend not only light but time as well.
These new metamateriels were beyond the manufacturing capabilities of anyone even
a couple of decades ago, let alone back in the 40's.
They are still highly experimental.
They only work for very specific and narrow frequency ranges, outside of which they make
the object even more visible. And this is a fundamental property of the way they work and
not simply a technical problem to be solved.
They are also extremely fragile.
They will never be used on tanks [or other military vehicles] because they are way to flimsy
and to ineffective/expensive.
Steven Hawking did not propose that Black holes bend space and time, that was Einstein.
Perhaps you need to read up on what it is you are talking about.
Let's take this unusual opportunity to address Dr. Benjamin Wiker's questions and Mr. Antony Flew's words directly. #1...
Q: Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in "There is a God", that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in "There is a God", we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"
A: Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.
With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in "The God Delusion" that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLike I said. He lost his mind.
Let's take this unusual opportunity to address Dr. Benjamin Wiker's questions and Mr. Antony Flew's words directly. #1...
[b]Q: Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in "There is a God", that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was ...[text shortened]... r. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.[/b]
Originally posted by googlefudgeA: Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.
Like I said. He lost his mind.
With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in "The God Delusion" that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
Originally posted by googlefudge
Like I said. He lost his mind.
Then tear him and his rationales apart one after another; both Flew and googlefudge are on a level field with familiar turf.
The post that was quoted here has been removedOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby
Source link?
Thanks.
Originally posted by Duchess64
I had wondered whether you (GrampyBobby) were extremely disingenuous
or extremely ignorant. Now the latter seems more likely in this case.
While Antony Flew denied, of course, that he was afflicted by senility,
he did concede that the book was written by Roy Abraham Varghese
because he (near age 84) was no longer capable of writing on his own.
"While Antony Flew's name appears as an author (he was much more
famous than his co-author), the 2007 book _There is a God_ evidently
was written by Roy Abraham Varghese. Its style is quite different from
the style of books written by Antony Flew when he was much younger.
Antony Flew (born in 1923) was 84 years old when this book was published.
Some people claim to have observed significant evidence that Antony
Flew's mind had seriously declined, with him having great difficulty in
remembering things that he supposedly had written or discussed.
So there remains some controversy about the extent to which Antony
Flew understood--or could have understood--what Roy Abraham Varghese
was writing in his name."
Duchess64, please accept my apology if these are your own words. I admire your knowledge and memory. Thanks.