This is an open air letter, in the form of honest questions, and very few specific statements. If one can't honorably respect a difference of opinion without resorting to indignation or provocation, one simply should not read it.
I don't think anyone on this forum has any debate if such a thing that right or wrong exists. Can we not become prentenius or arrogant ... if someone chooses to call it; good and evil, moral and amoral, wisdom and foolishness, god or the devil, beautiful or ugly, love or hate? What does the true difference make, if someone holds a personal belief that they do not try to enforce upon others? This is why I found the remarks of someone who says that there is something called a selfish gene, extremely personally. He does not believe in the same thing that John Lennon believed in, and totally mutilated the art of a dead man, out of selfishness. Am I not permitted to think, that trying to force someone to not believe in anything period, from the stand point of "I" do not believe is wholeheartedly fallible? Does one feel obligated to enforce only what they believe in ... as just? The thing all humanity shares in all societies, is thoughts about society. The only time I have ever told anyone to believe in something I couldn't prove, was when I was a young know it all. I told people what not to believe, regardless whether or not I could really and truly prove it. It's personal preference, science does not answer this question, nor does philosophy. The structure should be neutral.
I think about what I am going to write, right now. I am thinking about typing this nonsense, and before I can physically do so, I have to think about doing it. So to me, it appears my mind appears to be limited to my body. In the same respect, if I do not first think about what key to press, I will press the wrong key if at all. I haven't come in here preaching what I think about God nor Aliens spewing forth long complicated drivel, that is not either proven nor unproven. I said, I believe in "God," if you wamt to make it a four letter word, then do so and call it "good."
My personal beliefs about the concepts of good and evil relates to memetic algorithms, and memes. Memes, the idea that good story sticks with us for some reason. I don't really have to think too much, because I know that the popular opinion on this forum is that anyone whom believes in "God," has to be a *****. There is no other explanation. And, when I watch movies, I must only watch the "christian" network. I like fantasy, and science-fiction the most. Whatever good is, it's something I cannot fully understand, nor describe it, by just reading about it in a book and thinking I know it all.
This is where the concept of wisdom comes into to play for me. Knowing, is not understanding. I could be an avid reader and have a good memory, and read every medical book out there, would that make me a doctor? It seems something else is required for me to become a doctor, experience. So one could say gaining wisdom involves gaining or having experience. But, one cannot do this on their own, it seems that there is a need for one to interact with another. We could call this training, or learning. If two scientists, very knowledgeable in science get together, regardless of their opinions on God or good and evil, how will they ever solve a problem that is bigger than they are in solidarity rather than inter-action ... not intra-action? How would two "holy-men" do it? How would two "philosophers" do it?
How would two politicians do it? It seems if they were not willing to have a little give and take, push and pull, or yin and yang .. nothing would ever get done. There would be no movement, or no chance for change. I am not here to prove that I am better than anyone else, I only care to be better than myself. Does that not make any sense at all, my personal theory, truth, or razor is mine. I am not here to force it upon anyone. I will not "preach" in the name of true science, religion, philosophy, justice, morality. None of the largest questions in any of these ... does any-one being be able to answer for another but their own. So if I become pragmatic because I am being enforced pragmatically upon, what does that make "me" guilty of, in truth? Not being myself, or not being whom other people want me to be? This is not a stupid question.
When I think or terms like intelligence or design, I am not willing to adhere to just what "I think" that means, nor what "sum-one" (intentional) "thinks" that means. I am willing to discuss that, I am will to debate that, but I am not willing to enforce either of the two view points. That is why, I am willing to discuss with people who others might say, you're a crank, wacko-job, religious freak, space-cadet, to a point. The point where I draw the line is where they start trying to enforce that belief on me, and I will use any reasonable structure, form, or function to debate that. I will try to keep it simple and clean, but people don't always do that. And often in most cases, the best logic to use against any presented argument is the logic the argument uses to state it's claim. If you want to treat me as an idiot, fool, wacko, paranoid freak, arrogant prima donna, then that is what I will be for you, it's not what I want to be, it is much rather what you're forcing me to be because you won't even listen to you own logic. A simple example from an atheist and a theist.
I believe in "god"/good/evil
I do not believe in "god"/good/evil
If I asked, what is your belief of this was how would you answer?
I do/do not hold a belief about god.
Is this incoherent logic?
(if you want to remove evil that's fine, good too that's fine-now, figure out why we haven't been able to do it in the world yet without acting upon a belief) There is clearly both good and evil in the world, we are not all intentionalist zombies or machines" performing functions are we? Does the way my "computer" behave dictate my behavior to be good or bad, or do I? Does it control me, or do I control it? (without, piracy(irony) or hacking, or permission, or allowance, or tolerance)
Can anyone control mine? What is the Matrix? Seriously, watch the movie and really try to consider it, because we my friends are jacked into right now. Is that not a valid comparison?
What is the most important word in either statement? In my opinion, to counter what atheism, regardless of how hard or soft saying it is not a believe is false. Because the statement is not hinged on god, do, in, not ... not I, but believe.
If "I" believe some-thing or any-thing or no-thing, it is a belief that "I" carry. There is no logical argument against that, and that is grounded in reality, or relativity. The frame of reference of the observer. It is a personal choice that "we" have to make for ourselves. Oh no, this doesn't make any sense still does it? If one is thinking that at this moment, I would raise this question if you can addresses it objectively rather than subjectively, to your own personal belief.
If seeing something is a physical function only, how is it that people hallucinate or dream? Reality is a physical state dependant on a questionable mental state. We cannot prove "the mind" or consciousness exists, technically correct? Are we not still trying to solve that problem? So how can we not question nor choice what it is we see or think we see, let alone know or understand? Is what makes us human our ability (yes I could phrase this better, but there is a point to be made) act like animals or on desire? Or is it the ability to control action and desire? Humility, or being humble? Is that outrageous to think? What "doctrine" should we enforce, blind action or control? Some ancient philosophers called this moderation.
I have things I consider to be more interesting to discuss with someone like Ron, who is far from arrogant, and is not trying enforce his arrogance (Or ideals, beliefs, opinion, wisdom, truth, knowledge, WHATEVER) upon me, giving me no other option on how I should try to communicate back. He tries to share it with me, not force me to listen, and there is an EMMENSE difference.
So, with out further delay, I truly will retire. There will be those of you that will think that this somehow means "I" won, "we" won the game. I was never playing a game, and I do not have the tolerance for people whom do. Games are intolerable, but never the less, with an open mind you do learn something from them about other people. They ... are not always like you, if but only a precious few.
Ground Control this is Major Meme,
I'm out.
(edited, but I know there are more mistakes, because I make them because I am not perfect, but I can be better than my mistakes)
The ironic thing is that Meem likes the concept of memes, which is a term invented by Richard Dawkins, in his book The Selfish Gene.
and
and
My personal beliefs about the concepts of good and evil relates to meme algorithms, and memes. Memes, the idea that good story sticks with us for some reason. I don't really have to think too much, because I know that the popular opinion on this forum is that anyone whom believes in "God," has to be a *****.
Meem,
The whole point of atheism is absolute materialism. Atheists do not attribute supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Dreams are not supernatural, sorry.
QUOTE
What does the true difference make if someone holds a personal belief that they do not try to enforce upon others? This is why I found the remarks of someone who says that there is something called a selfish gene, extremely personally. He does not believe in the same thing that John Lennon believe and totally mutilated the art of a dead man, out of selfishness.
and
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What does the true difference make if someone holds a personal belief that they do not try to enforce upon others? This is why I found the remarks of someone who says that there is something called a selfish gene, extremely personally. He does not believe in the same thing that John Lennon believe and totally mutilated the art of a dead man, out of selfishness. |
and
My personal beliefs about the concepts of good and evil relates to meme algorithms, and memes. Memes, the idea that good story sticks with us for some reason. I don't really have to think too much, because I know that the popular opinion on this forum is that anyone whom believes in "God," has to be a *****.
Meem,
The whole point of atheism is absolute materialism. Atheists do not attribute supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Dreams are not supernatural, sorry.
If I can't make my point any more simple, which will be my last remark, to my insisted stupidity ...
Can you make a rhythm by beating on a drum, from simply looking at it? Do you have to learn the rhythm in your mind before you can reproduce it on the drum? do you play the drum, or does it play you?
If you don't see the point, I can't explain it to you. Nor do I care to get involved ina argument with someone that brags on their lack of inter-spection, and only confirms their intra-spection, or skeptic, take your pick.
Farewell.
Can you make a rhythm by beating on a drum, from simply looking at it? Do you have to learn the rhythm in your mind before you can reproduce it on the drum? do you play the drum, or does it play you?
If you don't see the point, I can't explain it to you. Nor do I care to get involved ina argument with someone that brags on their lack of inter-spection, and only confirms their intra-spection, or skeptic, take your pick.
Farewell.
There does not need to be a God for us to be able to play a drum.
All statements I said nothing about god, I said something about a drum, that is plagiarism. Yet further proof that there is no objective reasoning being practiced, only subjective thought, or thinking. And the subject is your opinion, how can you not see that?
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 02:31 PM)
All statements I said nothing about god, I said something about a drum, that is plagiarism. Yet further proof that there is no objective reasoning being practiced, only subjective thought, or thinking. And the subject is your opinion, how can you not see that?
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
Oh My God, you are worse than the RIAA. Plagiarism? Really?
You are trying so hard to be taken seriously, but you are making no sense.
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
Oh My God, you are worse than the RIAA. Plagiarism? Really?
You are trying so hard to be taken seriously, but you are making no sense.
If you're not trying to prove anything to me, you can stop now, like a mature adult.
"heaven" a.k.a. space forbid that if a higher form "intelligence" life were out there, and they could help us with "our" problems why would they help us with an attitude like that? Because we disrespect and mistreat those "forms" of "intelligence" we think are "beneath" us? You think, you know what I am saying, however you do not. What is life without respect?
"heaven" a.k.a. space forbid that if a higher form "intelligence" life were out there, and they could help us with "our" problems why would they help us with an attitude like that? Because we disrespect and mistreat those "forms" of "intelligence" we think are "beneath" us? You think, you know what I am saying, however you do not. What is life without respect?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 07:31 PM)
All statements I said nothing about god, I said something about a drum, that is plagiarism. Yet further proof that there is no objective reasoning being practiced, only subjective thought, or thinking. And the subject is your opinion, how can you not see that?
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
I play the drum.
What is your point?
And what opinion?
"There does not need to be a God for us to be able to play a drum."
Is not an opinion. There are alternate explanations as to our ability to play drums that do not require God.
I also have some dictionaries.
I read them they don't read me.
You should buy one.
Start with the word plagiearism.
Do you play the drum, or does the drum play you?
That was the question. So if you can't answer it, like it is worded, then don't plagiarism me .... for truth's sake, not "god's."
I play the drum.
What is your point?
And what opinion?
"There does not need to be a God for us to be able to play a drum."
Is not an opinion. There are alternate explanations as to our ability to play drums that do not require God.
I also have some dictionaries.
I read them they don't read me.
You should buy one.
Start with the word plagiearism.
The point is, what makes a good song or rhythm? What makes a bad one? Opinion, or is it a little more complicated than that? What makes a good story, the reader, or the writer? In the movies you watch, do you identify with the hero or the villain?
Are "aliens," "if" they are out there good or evil? Are they both? Are most of them good, but only a few of them bad? Why is that crazy to think about? Why would they not help us? Because we prefer to hit the bad notes, rather then the good ones?
Honestly, I'm not sure what they would do in reality, but sometimes I hate to think about it when I turn on my T.V. Just more bad news, with people singing the same old "songs," beating on the same old "drum." What is life, if not a gift ... curse? A triumph or a tragedy?
How would you treat someone from another planet that thought, you were "god?"
How could we ever go into deep-space, without that consideration of something we can't "prove" either way?
No, that doesn't make any sense.
Are "aliens," "if" they are out there good or evil? Are they both? Are most of them good, but only a few of them bad? Why is that crazy to think about? Why would they not help us? Because we prefer to hit the bad notes, rather then the good ones?
Honestly, I'm not sure what they would do in reality, but sometimes I hate to think about it when I turn on my T.V. Just more bad news, with people singing the same old "songs," beating on the same old "drum." What is life, if not a gift ... curse? A triumph or a tragedy?
How would you treat someone from another planet that thought, you were "god?"
How could we ever go into deep-space, without that consideration of something we can't "prove" either way?
No, that doesn't make any sense.
Can I say, I am not telling you what to believe, and actually be trusted when I ask a simple question?
If light doesn't have "mass" is it material? Do you feel that saying light is a particle is a valid theory, just mass?
Seriously, I am just asking a "stupid" question. I am not telling you to go read king james, the torah, coran, what-the- ___ ever. Read them all and pick your opinion for all I care. It's just a stupid question. Does that make me a dreamer? Is it that hard to imagine?
I do believe that was the real point of the song, word for word.
I do believe that was the real point of the song, word for word.
I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.
John Lennon
But, I guess that makes me stupid?
But, I guess that makes me stupid?
Do you feel that saying light is a particle is a valid theory, just mass?
That question shows a lack of understanding.
In some experiments light acts as if it is a particle.
That does not mean it has mass.
Now the question is, will you unlearn what you think you know about light and particles?
And I used to believe what FBM just said but I think the Mandelbrot set is an analogy to how good/bad can be black and white but unknowable in "gray" situations.
If light doesn't have "mass" is it material? Do you feel that saying light is a particle is a valid theory, just mass?
Seriously, I am just asking a "stupid" question. I am not telling you to go read king james, the torah, coran, what-the- ___ ever. Read them all and pick your opinion for all I care. It's just a stupid question. Does that make me a dreamer? Is it that hard to imagine?
QUOTE
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
I do believe that was the real point of the song, word for word.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will be as one Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world You may say that I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you'll join us And the world will live as one |
I do believe that was the real point of the song, word for word.
I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong.
John Lennon
But, I guess that makes me stupid?
I think your problem is that you think that morality is absolute. It's not. Good, bad; right, wrong; it's all a matter of perspective.
Morality is relative, there is no black or white, only gray.
Morality is relative, there is no black or white, only gray.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 08:21 PM)
But, I guess that makes me stupid?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 08:21 PM)
Do you feel that saying light is a particle is a valid theory, just mass?
That question shows a lack of understanding.
In some experiments light acts as if it is a particle.
That does not mean it has mass.
Now the question is, will you unlearn what you think you know about light and particles?
And I used to believe what FBM just said but I think the Mandelbrot set is an analogy to how good/bad can be black and white but unknowable in "gray" situations.
And if I can be any stupider for you, I'll barrow something from the Matrix, lets not call it plagiarism, since I didn't fail or make the mistake, of not referencing it.
I personally and quite specifically believe,
"I am the one," who can make a difference if I try, for those around me. Is that stupid too? The Matrix is a great movie.
So you agree that light has no mass, but you're a materialist, right? I'm confused. Could you give a scientific definition of atheism, and the specific "reality" characteristic it relates to, solely?
But I am stupid ...
If you are not willing to admit to the possibility, you are far from a scientist when you have already eliminated the most abundant property in the universe. The higgs field?
I personally and quite specifically believe,
"I am the one," who can make a difference if I try, for those around me. Is that stupid too? The Matrix is a great movie.
QUOTE
Now the question is, will you unlearn what you think you know about light and particles?
So you agree that light has no mass, but you're a materialist, right? I'm confused. Could you give a scientific definition of atheism, and the specific "reality" characteristic it relates to, solely?
But I am stupid ...
If you are not willing to admit to the possibility, you are far from a scientist when you have already eliminated the most abundant property in the universe. The higgs field?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 03:37 PM)
"I am the one," who can make a difference if I try, for those around me. Is that stupid too? The Matrix is a great movie.
If I am correct, Neo was a Jesus allegory. Meem, are you Jesus?
Materialism means that you only believe in things that are provable.
Higgs field: provable
God: unprovable
Light: provable
all forms of spiritualism: unprovable
(I should note that not all atheists are materialists, though most are)
If I am correct, Neo was a Jesus allegory. Meem, are you Jesus?
QUOTE
So you agree that light has no mass, but you're a materialist, right? I'm confused. Could you give a scientific definition of atheism, and the specific "reality" characteristic it relates to, solely?
...
If you are not willing to admit to the possibility, you are far from a scientist when you have already eliminated the most abundant property in the universe. The higgs field?
...
If you are not willing to admit to the possibility, you are far from a scientist when you have already eliminated the most abundant property in the universe. The higgs field?
Materialism means that you only believe in things that are provable.
Higgs field: provable
God: unprovable
Light: provable
all forms of spiritualism: unprovable
(I should note that not all atheists are materialists, though most are)
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 08:37 PM)
So you agree that light has no mass, but you're a materialist, right? I'm confused.
Only because you don't understand subleties of words.
The true dichotomy is "observable/unobservable" not "material/no mass".
Only because you don't understand subleties of words.
The true dichotomy is "observable/unobservable" not "material/no mass".
perhaps then you could better describe what the the duality of light is for me, because I always thought it meant something like mass/no-mass or particle/wave.
photon, the particle composing light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, sometimes called light quantum. The photon has no charge and no mass
Maybe I don't understand very clear definitions, who cares about subtleties when my problem is this obvious.
QUOTE
Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons, exhibits properties of both waves and particles. This property is referred to as the wave–particle duality |
photon, the particle composing light and other forms of electromagnetic radiation, sometimes called light quantum. The photon has no charge and no mass
Maybe I don't understand very clear definitions, who cares about subtleties when my problem is this obvious.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 06:31 PM)
perhaps then you could better describe what the the duality of light is for me, because I always thought it meant something like mass/no-mass or particle/wave.
Maybe I don't understand very clear definitions, who cares about subtleties when my problem is this obvious.
The wave/particle duality stems from studies of the behavior of light under controlled circumstances.
Double Slit Experiment
Light is a wave because propagates in a wave-like fashion, but it's a particle because it has discrete units called photons.
Maybe I don't understand very clear definitions, who cares about subtleties when my problem is this obvious.
The wave/particle duality stems from studies of the behavior of light under controlled circumstances.
Double Slit Experiment
Light is a wave because propagates in a wave-like fashion, but it's a particle because it has discrete units called photons.
So why do we continue to dance around the truth that everything in the universe consists of "material" things? The very way in which we see things is because of something that is not even there?
The photon has no charge and no mass
How can I truly justify saying there is only the "material" evidence that matters, when I couldn't even see it ... without something that has no mass?
mass
Maybe this is why I seem incoherent? I'm so truly confused now!
matter
Maybe this is why I seem incoherent? I'm so truly confused now!
matter
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. something that occupies space.
So, another question is, does this bring any "matter" to the "gravity" of the situation? Or am I playing with words too much? Can you see my invisible point yet? Or am I bending "light?" Which, apparently by technicality, isn't even there?
QUOTE
Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Light, which exists in tiny "packets" called photons |
The photon has no charge and no mass
How can I truly justify saying there is only the "material" evidence that matters, when I couldn't even see it ... without something that has no mass?
mass
QUOTE
1. a body of coherent matter
Maybe this is why I seem incoherent? I'm so truly confused now!
matter
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. a body of coherent matter |
Maybe this is why I seem incoherent? I'm so truly confused now!
matter
1. the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
2. physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, esp. as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
3. something that occupies space.
So, another question is, does this bring any "matter" to the "gravity" of the situation? Or am I playing with words too much? Can you see my invisible point yet? Or am I bending "light?" Which, apparently by technicality, isn't even there?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 06:57 PM)
How can I truly justify saying there is only the "material" evidence that matters, when I couldn't even see it ... without something that has no mass?
It is material in the sense that it physically exists. Stop arguing semantics. You know what I am talking about.
It is material in the sense that it physically exists. Stop arguing semantics. You know what I am talking about.
How can you even consider that semantics when it is a factual definition?
(edit)
And I am not trying to be a know it all nor a arrogant, prima donna, all I am saying is arguing over something which is factually both, is/is not ... IS semantics.
(edit)
And I am not trying to be a know it all nor a arrogant, prima donna, all I am saying is arguing over something which is factually both, is/is not ... IS semantics.
QUOTE
It is material
What does that mean, semantically?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is material in the sense that it physically exists |
What does that mean, semantically?
So, to try and tone down a stupid argument over is, is not, reasonably ...
Is anyone going to watch Warehouse 13 tomorrow? I want that job!
Is anyone going to watch Warehouse 13 tomorrow? I want that job!
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 07:11 PM)
How can you even consider that semantics when it is a factual definition?
What does that mean, semantically?
Please revise your preconceptions:
Answers.com
Please actually look up the definitions of the words you use.
What does that mean, semantically?
Please revise your preconceptions:
QUOTE
Materialism:
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.
Answers.com
Please actually look up the definitions of the words you use.
In what sense? Your sense or my sense? You left that out. Perception? I am now utterly confused.
What do you think materialism is ....
What do you think materialism is ....
It is material in the sense that it physically exists
Allow me a little artistic permission here ...
It is material in my sense that it physically exists.
Why not both, like the "law" or "our" understanding defines it? Dual nature, is that so hard to do? Is there no middle ground at all? I have to believe there must be or people would still own slaves. Should we revert back to our old ways, or find a new one?
The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.
Aldous Huxley:
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
George Santayana
Hand me some light then, I would be glad to bottle it. Because, that is what you might as well be saying. Can I call you Mr. Wizard? It's a light hearted joke, don't get so serious.
Bingo!
This gets back to that which I have already mentioned. You are telling me, we can bottle up light. I'm going to try that today. When it gets dark, I'll open the bottle up in-front of a mirror. I will see a flash if you're right.
This gets back to that which I have already mentioned. You are telling me, we can bottle up light. I'm going to try that today. When it gets dark, I'll open the bottle up in-front of a mirror. I will see a flash if you're right.
I think you are looking for a loophole with which to introduce whatever ideas you want
More about what you think, string theory is that loop hole you're talking about. I however am not so certain that loopholes exist. So, you agree?
There is the higgs field, and the ether field. Not the field of crazy ideas. That's just what I think. I don't feel a need to try and make someone else think it. And the reason I find the astronomy article very interesting is, the new stars being born is NOT coming from gas, it's coming from never before seen DUST, not GAS. You could even say .... it sounds like the phoenix rising out of the ashes. I like to think of it as possibly being cosmic re-cycling that would fit into the standard model perhaps? But I don't know, I'm just dumb. I shouldn't even want to try to think, because other people know more than me already, why even try. That it the exact attitude I will not teach kids with.
QUOTE
Please revise your preconceptions
What do you think materialism is ....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Please revise your preconceptions |
What do you think materialism is ....
It is material in the sense that it physically exists
Allow me a little artistic permission here ...
It is material in my sense that it physically exists.
Why not both, like the "law" or "our" understanding defines it? Dual nature, is that so hard to do? Is there no middle ground at all? I have to believe there must be or people would still own slaves. Should we revert back to our old ways, or find a new one?
QUOTE
The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different.
Aldous Huxley:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. Aldous Huxley: |
Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
George Santayana
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 07:49 PM)
In what sense? Your sense or my sense? You left that out. Perception? I am now utterly confused.
I did not use the word 'perception'.
material = physical
Answers.com
Why are we having this discussion? Do you really think that atheists/materialists don't believe in light? Do you really equate light with spiritual nonsense? Are you just wasting my time?
I did not use the word 'perception'.
material = physical
QUOTE
Material:
Of or concerned with the physical as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual
Of or concerned with the physical as distinct from the intellectual or spiritual
Answers.com
Why are we having this discussion? Do you really think that atheists/materialists don't believe in light? Do you really equate light with spiritual nonsense? Are you just wasting my time?
QUOTE
It is material in the sense that it physically exists
Hand me some light then, I would be glad to bottle it. Because, that is what you might as well be saying. Can I call you Mr. Wizard? It's a light hearted joke, don't get so serious.
QUOTE
Are you just wasting my time?
Bingo!
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 08:00 PM)
Hand me some light then, I would be glad to bottle it. Because, that is what you might as well be saying. Can I call you Mr. Wizard? It's a light hearted joke, don't get so serious.
Ok, what word would you use to include energy, matter, et al, but exclude religion, spirituality and philosophy?
If you can find that word, that is what atheism is.
Ok, what word would you use to include energy, matter, et al, but exclude religion, spirituality and philosophy?
If you can find that word, that is what atheism is.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 12:11 AM)
How can you even consider that semantics when it is a factual definition?
because it is not the in context factual definition.
And light is not a particle. And it is not a wave.
It is light, it is something that has some characteristics of paritcles and some characteristics of waves. But is neither.
I've been reading a bit about the age of enlightenment.
It talks about materialism vs spiritualism.
The first is based on emperical observation, mass has nothing to do with this materialism.
The second is people think you can "just know stuff". If that does work then why don't those people each know the same stuff?
because it is not the in context factual definition.
And light is not a particle. And it is not a wave.
It is light, it is something that has some characteristics of paritcles and some characteristics of waves. But is neither.
I've been reading a bit about the age of enlightenment.
It talks about materialism vs spiritualism.
The first is based on emperical observation, mass has nothing to do with this materialism.
The second is people think you can "just know stuff". If that does work then why don't those people each know the same stuff?
So, since light physically exists, how does anything move through space? Like magic, what are you saying? Do you even know? /boggle
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
Because,we are all different, and if we can't accept that, we don't deserve to be able to travel in space. Because obviously people like yourself feel a need to enforce a view point with no emperical evidence, which is what you are accusing me of doing and I am not, I'm just saying hey man, it's possible. That's is all I am saying, not hey, I can go to sleep load up a pilot program and "know" how to be an astronaut, if that "reality" exists somewhere ... which is pretty well a valid hypothesis of string theory ... that something exists not here, not in our reality, but it does ... why do people argue against it in the name of science when science says it's possible for it to exist? Possible other realities .... on the mega-string ... with strange laws. That's what the laws of our reality seems to think? Why is it so hard to believe without enforcing opinion to be "realistically" inquisitive?
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 08:50 PM)
So, since light physically exists, how does anything move through space? Like magic, what are you saying? Do you even know? /boggle
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
You don't make any sense at all.
Have you stopped taking your medications?
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
You don't make any sense at all.
Have you stopped taking your medications?
Yes, indeed I have. I am definitely crazy for thinking photons pop in and out of reality, and the possibility that there are other realities universes all together. Tell the people working on string theory they are retarded, and need med. Your problem is you want to have a finite definition for everything, when current theory says that's impossible, it's called string theory. My advice, read more books, watch more science channel.
"infinity is finite"
A real oxymoron, contradiction.
love meem.
(Today kids, we are going to watcha science movie)
Be sure to tell your mom and dad, that I am not disproving your "spirituality" I am saying it's possible, so don't hate ANYONE for what they believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0LqsBe_iw&feature=related
"infinity is finite"
A real oxymoron, contradiction.
love meem.
(Today kids, we are going to watcha science movie)
Be sure to tell your mom and dad, that I am not disproving your "spirituality" I am saying it's possible, so don't hate ANYONE for what they believe.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOzP6XhtAXo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0LqsBe_iw&feature=related
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 09:06 PM)
Yes, indeed I have. I am definitely crazy for thinking photons pop in and out of reality, and the possibility that there are other realities universes all together. Tell the people working on string theory they are retarded, and need med. Your problem is you want to have a finite definition for everything, when current theory says that's impossible, it's called string theory. My advice, read more books, watch more science channel.
Watching those videos must make you feel really smart, huh? I'm sure that watching the Science Channel qualifies you as an expert on String Theory. Maybe they should hire you to work at CERN, I'm sure that everyone there would marvel at your great ideas and wonderful imagination.
A lot of scientific concepts are fairly difficult for anyone to understand. I don't understand many of them. What I can see is someone who uses technobabble to make themselves look smarter than they really are.
Watching those videos must make you feel really smart, huh? I'm sure that watching the Science Channel qualifies you as an expert on String Theory. Maybe they should hire you to work at CERN, I'm sure that everyone there would marvel at your great ideas and wonderful imagination.
A lot of scientific concepts are fairly difficult for anyone to understand. I don't understand many of them. What I can see is someone who uses technobabble to make themselves look smarter than they really are.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 6 2009, 10:04 PM)
What I can see is someone who attempts to uses technobabble to make themselves look smarter than they really are, yet fails miserably, even among a group of non-scientists.
I edited your last sentence to make it a bit more accurate. Hope you don't mind.
I edited your last sentence to make it a bit more accurate. Hope you don't mind.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 01:50 AM)
So, since light physically exists, how does anything move through space? Like magic, what are you saying? Do you even know? /boggle
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
Believe it or not but people actually swim in water.
Why would light having observable effects stop Mercury from orbiting the Sun?
I think you are looking for a loophole with which to introduce whatever ideas you want.
Mercury should not be able to orbit the sun because, it's way to close of the source of light, because it's definitely physically there?
Believe it or not but people actually swim in water.
Why would light having observable effects stop Mercury from orbiting the Sun?
I think you are looking for a loophole with which to introduce whatever ideas you want.
QUOTE
Believe it or not but people actually swim in water.
Why would light having observable effects stop Mercury from orbiting the Sun?
Why would light having observable effects stop Mercury from orbiting the Sun?
This gets back to that which I have already mentioned. You are telling me, we can bottle up light. I'm going to try that today. When it gets dark, I'll open the bottle up in-front of a mirror. I will see a flash if you're right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Believe it or not but people actually swim in water. Why would light having observable effects stop Mercury from orbiting the Sun? |
This gets back to that which I have already mentioned. You are telling me, we can bottle up light. I'm going to try that today. When it gets dark, I'll open the bottle up in-front of a mirror. I will see a flash if you're right.
I think you are looking for a loophole with which to introduce whatever ideas you want
More about what you think, string theory is that loop hole you're talking about. I however am not so certain that loopholes exist. So, you agree?
There is the higgs field, and the ether field. Not the field of crazy ideas. That's just what I think. I don't feel a need to try and make someone else think it. And the reason I find the astronomy article very interesting is, the new stars being born is NOT coming from gas, it's coming from never before seen DUST, not GAS. You could even say .... it sounds like the phoenix rising out of the ashes. I like to think of it as possibly being cosmic re-cycling that would fit into the standard model perhaps? But I don't know, I'm just dumb. I shouldn't even want to try to think, because other people know more than me already, why even try. That it the exact attitude I will not teach kids with.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 10:30 AM)
This gets back to that which I have already mentioned. You are telling me, we can bottle up light. I'm going to try that today. When it gets dark, I'll open the bottle up in-front of a mirror. I will see a flash if you're right.
Why are you asking stupid questions? You can't wrap your head around the truth so you are mocking the concept with your own misconceptions. The point is that LIGHT EXISTS. LIGHT PHYSICALLY EXISTS. It can physically strike objects, it can bounce off of objects, it can be absorbed by objects. It has no mass, and is neither a particle nor a wave, but has properties of both. It travels at 'C' in a vacuum. IT IS MORE REAL THAN ANY GODS, GHOSTS OR GHOULS THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE.
You are a 'wedge theorist'. You look for any potential gap in scientific understanding and you try to 'wedge' your own agenda into that gap. You are no better than the young-earth creationists who do the same thing. If you want to be a student of science, stop talking and start listening, reading and researching.
Why are you asking stupid questions? You can't wrap your head around the truth so you are mocking the concept with your own misconceptions. The point is that LIGHT EXISTS. LIGHT PHYSICALLY EXISTS. It can physically strike objects, it can bounce off of objects, it can be absorbed by objects. It has no mass, and is neither a particle nor a wave, but has properties of both. It travels at 'C' in a vacuum. IT IS MORE REAL THAN ANY GODS, GHOSTS OR GHOULS THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE.
QUOTE
More about what you think, string theory is that loop hole you're talking about. I however am not so certain that loopholes exist. So, you agree?
You are a 'wedge theorist'. You look for any potential gap in scientific understanding and you try to 'wedge' your own agenda into that gap. You are no better than the young-earth creationists who do the same thing. If you want to be a student of science, stop talking and start listening, reading and researching.
Wedge? How many times are you going to label me and scream at me for thinking? Is it like the wedge you're tying to drive in-between us right now? I'm certain, if you can think for just a moment, you might realize something. and I am also certain, instead of that something being about yourself. You will most certain, realize something about me, a person you don't even know. Just one you think you know.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 10:48 AM)
Wedge? How many times are you going to label me and scream at me for thinking? Is it like the wedge you're tying to drive in-between us right now? I'm certain, if you can think for just a moment, you might realize something. and I am also certain, instead of that something being about yourself. You will most certain, realize something about me, a person you don't even know. Just one you think you know.
At this point, screaming 'I'm innocent' isn't going to work. You won't listen when we try to explain concepts to you. You are entrenched in your own opinions and you won't budge. A true scientist will change their opinions when presented with new evidence. You don't.
At this point, screaming 'I'm innocent' isn't going to work. You won't listen when we try to explain concepts to you. You are entrenched in your own opinions and you won't budge. A true scientist will change their opinions when presented with new evidence. You don't.
Honestly, if you need to keep telling how you're right for saying light ONLY exists, and does not have a dual nature, and I am willing to say that it does. Well, I think that speaks for itself. You're the one whom keeps coming back to prove your opinion, right? You had to come and speak out in this thread and stay light is only physical, it has no dual nature. That just goes to show me, that you think you know what I am saying without knowing what you yourself are saying.
And if any of the people who claim to be real physicists on this site had any respect for science ... they would set you straight, not for my sake, but for science.
And if any of the people who claim to be real physicists on this site had any respect for science ... they would set you straight, not for my sake, but for science.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 04:16 PM)
That just goes to show me, that you think you know what I am saying without knowing what you yourself are saying.
So what did you mean when you said this:
...So, with out further delay, I truly will retire. ...
...I'm out.
and this:
So what did you mean when you said this:
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 06:52 PM)
...So, with out further delay, I truly will retire. ...
...I'm out.
and this:
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 6 2009, 07:20 PM)
If I can't make my point any more simple, which will be my last remark, to my insisted stupidity ...
...Farewell.
Im sure youre a man of your word, right? So what did you mean when you said those things?
...Farewell.
Im sure youre a man of your word, right? So what did you mean when you said those things?
What do you say is the dual nature of light?
wave/particle?
I hope you don't mean it has a spiritual nature as well as a material nature.
Not everything that physically exists can be bottled up. Why do you think that?
Seriously get a dictionary. You will find several words with several meanings. It's like you only recognize the first list meaning of words and don't realize when one of the other meanings is used.
You are using the wrong definition of material.
wave/particle?
I hope you don't mean it has a spiritual nature as well as a material nature.
Not everything that physically exists can be bottled up. Why do you think that?
Seriously get a dictionary. You will find several words with several meanings. It's like you only recognize the first list meaning of words and don't realize when one of the other meanings is used.
You are using the wrong definition of material.
I'm not here to argue semantics.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:UeXSwh...n&ct=clnk&gl=us
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
Seriously get a dictionary. You will find several words with several meanings. It's like you only recognize the first list meaning of words and don't realize when one of the other meanings is used.
Is that what you were wanting me to do? Like I have been doing?
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think. That's all I want to do.
Poor misunderstood meem. Poor poor meem.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:UeXSwh...n&ct=clnk&gl=us
QUOTE
A quantum theory of a field is a quantum theory of an infinite number of particles.
• Handling an infinite number of particles is called the “manybody problem”.
• The infinite number of particles is related to the notion of “virtual particles”. These are short-lived photons, electrons, positrons, which pop in and out of existence during a time Δt so short that the energy uncertainty ΔE=h/4πΔt is as large as their energy (Lect. 23, Slide 10). They get away with violating energy conservation for a short time. Before they are caught cheating they vanish
• Handling an infinite number of particles is called the “manybody problem”.
• The infinite number of particles is related to the notion of “virtual particles”. These are short-lived photons, electrons, positrons, which pop in and out of existence during a time Δt so short that the energy uncertainty ΔE=h/4πΔt is as large as their energy (Lect. 23, Slide 10). They get away with violating energy conservation for a short time. Before they are caught cheating they vanish
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A quantum theory of a field is a quantum theory of an infinite number of particles. • Handling an infinite number of particles is called the “manybody problem”. • The infinite number of particles is related to the notion of “virtual particles”. These are short-lived photons, electrons, positrons, which pop in and out of existence during a time Δt so short that the energy uncertainty ΔE=h/4πΔt is as large as their energy (Lect. 23, Slide 10). They get away with violating energy conservation for a short time. Before they are caught cheating they vanish |
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
Seriously get a dictionary. You will find several words with several meanings. It's like you only recognize the first list meaning of words and don't realize when one of the other meanings is used.
Is that what you were wanting me to do? Like I have been doing?
QUOTE
String theories avoid the infinities and paradoxes of quantum field theories
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 12:02 PM)
I'm not here to argue semantics.
These are short-lived photons, electrons, positrons, which pop in and out of existence during a time Δt so short that the energy uncertainty ΔE=h/4πΔt is as large as their energy
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
The article that you cited has nothing to do with your question about light's particle/wave duality. It's describing the quantum nature of matter & energy and has nothing to do with observation.
These are short-lived photons, electrons, positrons, which pop in and out of existence during a time Δt so short that the energy uncertainty ΔE=h/4πΔt is as large as their energy
I suppose now, people will say I don't know how to read the subtleties of words. Apparently, I don't.
The article that you cited has nothing to do with your question about light's particle/wave duality. It's describing the quantum nature of matter & energy and has nothing to do with observation.
You do realize that you have just siad, "I, the flyingbutt man, am qualified to negate Einstien's nobel prize for the quantra field of light." You didn't say it word for word, but you might as well have.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21818
maybe you should try not understanding the subtleties of facts, but the facts themselves.
I am more than happy to lead a simple minded life. If this is what you call being simple minded. I'm not claiming to be Einstein, just me. I do admire him though.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21818
maybe you should try not understanding the subtleties of facts, but the facts themselves.
QUOTE
In time, the photoelectric effect became a staple of physics textbooks. Teachers like it because given all the experimental data, only part of which was known in 1905, the photoelectric effect provides the basis for a simple-minded step to the hypothesis of light quanta. The pedagogical prominence given to the photoelectric effect, as well as the oft-made assumption that Planck proposed the light quantum in his earlier black-body work, have led many physicists to refer to the March paper as the "photoelectric-effect paper". The fact that Einstein won the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect has also played a role; in truth, the photoelectric effect was a compromise solution because the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences did not accept the quantization of light and would not recognize the theory of relativity.
I am more than happy to lead a simple minded life. If this is what you call being simple minded. I'm not claiming to be Einstein, just me. I do admire him though.
My personal simple minded opinion is, trying to warp space is a bad idea for traveling. To go faster than light, use light. Lasers and magnetism. I know this comes from the mind of a simpleton.
If I did happen to be on a space ship traveling at the speed of light, and I turned on my "head lights" would I see a sign in-front of me? Sounds crazy too me to, but in that particular frame of reference would I become light, or would light still behave as it should in that frame of reference?
Is it that impossible ... "Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think, not what I think, but what they think. That's all I want to do. Maybe when we figure out how to shrink down the technology of LHC and NSF with some other discoveries, jsut maybe we could get ther. I think, Cherenkov radiation is part of it too. "Mr. Cherenkov, set a course."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nif/about.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090530/ts_al..._20090530082418
I think it's weird how the laser link is dead. It's pretty big news. Found their link. See, I do forget things. like NIF not NSF, oops.
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – A US weapons lab on Friday pulled back the curtain on a super laser with the power to burn as hot as a star.
The National Ignition Facility's main purpose is to serve as a tool for gauging the reliability and safety of the US nuclear weapons arsenal but scientists say it could deliver breakthroughs in safe fusion power.
"We have invented the world's largest laser system," actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said during a dedication ceremony attended by thousands including state and national officials.
"We can create the stars right here on earth. And I can see already my friends in Hollywood being very upset that their stuff that they show on the big screen is obsolete. We have the real stuff right here."
If I did happen to be on a space ship traveling at the speed of light, and I turned on my "head lights" would I see a sign in-front of me? Sounds crazy too me to, but in that particular frame of reference would I become light, or would light still behave as it should in that frame of reference?
Is it that impossible ... "Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think, not what I think, but what they think. That's all I want to do. Maybe when we figure out how to shrink down the technology of LHC and NSF with some other discoveries, jsut maybe we could get ther. I think, Cherenkov radiation is part of it too. "Mr. Cherenkov, set a course."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nif/about.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090530/ts_al..._20090530082418
I think it's weird how the laser link is dead. It's pretty big news. Found their link. See, I do forget things. like NIF not NSF, oops.
QUOTE
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) – A US weapons lab on Friday pulled back the curtain on a super laser with the power to burn as hot as a star.
The National Ignition Facility's main purpose is to serve as a tool for gauging the reliability and safety of the US nuclear weapons arsenal but scientists say it could deliver breakthroughs in safe fusion power.
"We have invented the world's largest laser system," actor-turned-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said during a dedication ceremony attended by thousands including state and national officials.
"We can create the stars right here on earth. And I can see already my friends in Hollywood being very upset that their stuff that they show on the big screen is obsolete. We have the real stuff right here."
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 05:42 PM)
I know, it's stupid to try and inspire people to think. That's all I want to do.
Poor misunderstood meem. Poor poor meem.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 12:42 PM)
Is it that impossible ... "Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before"
This explains EVERYTHING. You think that Star Trek is real! I was going to say that your techno-babble is worse than what I've heard from Star Trek.
Use light and magenetism to travel faster than light? ***??? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You completely ignore all facts which point to the inability for matter to travel at or faster than the speed of light. OF COURSE you have to warp space to travel between planets. The desirable thing would be to go somewhere without actually traveling the space in between.
Again, light and magnetism? Have you been listening to magpies too much? I think you stole his idea.
This explains EVERYTHING. You think that Star Trek is real! I was going to say that your techno-babble is worse than what I've heard from Star Trek.
Use light and magenetism to travel faster than light? ***??? That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You completely ignore all facts which point to the inability for matter to travel at or faster than the speed of light. OF COURSE you have to warp space to travel between planets. The desirable thing would be to go somewhere without actually traveling the space in between.
Again, light and magnetism? Have you been listening to magpies too much? I think you stole his idea.
You cannot hold me to the feebleness of your own mind. You're just afraid to think of the possibility, so you will never see it. That is far from my fault.
QUOTE (Meem+Jul 7 2009, 01:16 PM)
You cannot hold me to the feebleness of your own mind. You're just afraid to think of the possibility, so you will never see it. That is far from my fault.
hahahhahahhahhhhahahahahahaahaha
hahahhahahhahhhhahahahahahaahaha
Need say more? Do you believe in the idea of infinite possibilites, or are you limited to your own ideas?
Lordy, Meem is quite an idiot.
sesquipedalian
I only say that because I want to see Meem use the word.
I only say that because I want to see Meem use the word.
Giggle,stupid games.
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifrag...cexpialidocious
I like in particular, the highlight.
I like in particular, the highlight.
When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd,
To leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word.
A little spontaniaty keeps conversation keen,
You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean...
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrosicous!
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious
Fighting the Good Fight
I believe that any individual who has spiritually awakened in our time, to the degree that he or she finds a higher and deeper motive for living, is going to be driven to fight the good fight in one way or another. Whether it is through engaging with the struggle to evolve consciousness or fighting to save our world from climate change or nuclear war, the spiritual impulse cannot be separated from the moral compulsion to make the world a better place. And in order to fight the good fight, we have to engage, we have to get into the ring, not just stand outside it and be philosophers.
It takes guts and integrity of motive to fight the good fight. It takes a passionate interest in life itself. It’s easy to stand on the sidelines, shaking your head and commenting on how tragic things are. But if you really care, you are going to be in the ring, trying to make the world a better place. And only from that position will your words and your thoughts and your insights have weight. When you live an engaged life, your sense of self gains depth and power and authority, and your philosophy is no longer abstract. You become a person who can really make a difference, because you are actively participating, you are digging deep, and you are pushing up against the edge of your own potential.
Andrew Cohen
The world wide web, it came about from the LHC, and it provides instant access to many books. Schools should be filled with computers, everywhere.
nice..
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifrag...cexpialidocious
QUOTE
According to Richard M. Sherman, co-writer of the song with his brother, Robert, the word was created by them in two weeks, mostly out of double-talk.[2]
The roots of the word have been defined[3] as follows: super- "above", cali- "beauty", fragilistic- "delicate", expiali- "to atone", and docious- "educable", with the sum of these parts signifying roughly "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty." It should be noted that although the word contains recognizable English morphemes, it does not follow the rules of English morphology as a whole. The morpheme -istic is a suffix in English, whereas the morpheme ex- is typically a prefix; so following normal English morphological rules, it would represent two words: supercalifragilistic and expialidocious. As one word, it also violates the rule that the letter c cannot sound like a k when followed by an e, an i or a y. An acceptable alternative spelling is supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, replacing the "pi" with "pe."[citation needed]
The roots of the word have been defined[3] as follows: super- "above", cali- "beauty", fragilistic- "delicate", expiali- "to atone", and docious- "educable", with the sum of these parts signifying roughly "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty." It should be noted that although the word contains recognizable English morphemes, it does not follow the rules of English morphology as a whole. The morpheme -istic is a suffix in English, whereas the morpheme ex- is typically a prefix; so following normal English morphological rules, it would represent two words: supercalifragilistic and expialidocious. As one word, it also violates the rule that the letter c cannot sound like a k when followed by an e, an i or a y. An acceptable alternative spelling is supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, replacing the "pi" with "pe."[citation needed]
I like in particular, the highlight.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| According to Richard M. Sherman, co-writer of the song with his brother, Robert, the word was created by them in two weeks, mostly out of double-talk.[2] The roots of the word have been defined[3] as follows: super- "above", cali- "beauty", fragilistic- "delicate", expiali- "to atone", and docious- "educable", with the sum of these parts signifying roughly "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty." It should be noted that although the word contains recognizable English morphemes, it does not follow the rules of English morphology as a whole. The morpheme -istic is a suffix in English, whereas the morpheme ex- is typically a prefix; so following normal English morphological rules, it would represent two words: supercalifragilistic and expialidocious. As one word, it also violates the rule that the letter c cannot sound like a k when followed by an e, an i or a y. An acceptable alternative spelling is supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, replacing the "pi" with "pe."[citation needed] |
I like in particular, the highlight.
When trying to express oneself, it's frankly quite absurd,
To leaf through lengthy lexicons to find the perfect word.
A little spontaniaty keeps conversation keen,
You need to find a way to say, precisely what you mean...
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it is something quite atrosicous!
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious
QUOTE
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Albert Einstein |
Fighting the Good Fight
I believe that any individual who has spiritually awakened in our time, to the degree that he or she finds a higher and deeper motive for living, is going to be driven to fight the good fight in one way or another. Whether it is through engaging with the struggle to evolve consciousness or fighting to save our world from climate change or nuclear war, the spiritual impulse cannot be separated from the moral compulsion to make the world a better place. And in order to fight the good fight, we have to engage, we have to get into the ring, not just stand outside it and be philosophers.
It takes guts and integrity of motive to fight the good fight. It takes a passionate interest in life itself. It’s easy to stand on the sidelines, shaking your head and commenting on how tragic things are. But if you really care, you are going to be in the ring, trying to make the world a better place. And only from that position will your words and your thoughts and your insights have weight. When you live an engaged life, your sense of self gains depth and power and authority, and your philosophy is no longer abstract. You become a person who can really make a difference, because you are actively participating, you are digging deep, and you are pushing up against the edge of your own potential.
Andrew Cohen
The world wide web, it came about from the LHC, and it provides instant access to many books. Schools should be filled with computers, everywhere.
we missed out, but i think the next gens will have a better approach.
nice..
seems to be more ... tragic if you ask me.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.