If I tried to prove that “a truth does not exist is true, – That would be true.
If I tried to prove that “truth does not exist is true, – That would be true.
Why support unreality, Why not require religious classes of your choice?
[If the moderator feels this post is inappropriate feel free to delete/Will probably need to change poll name]
Do you mean teach religion (Christianity) or religions (overview of religions)?
There's a big difference.
There's a big difference.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 8 2009, 09:19 PM)
Do you mean teach religion (Christianity) or religions (overview of religions)?
There's a big difference.
There's a big difference.
I meant non-government (off campus) but yeah, good idea. I think the constitution supports freedom of religion.
QUOTE
Should religion be taught in public schools?
Yes, my religion, which states that universal constant change exists.
The only universal TRUTH is that there is no universal TRUTH. 
FGG
FGG
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 8 2009, 03:22 PM)
I think the constitution supports freedom of religion.
... also freedom from religion!
FGG
... also freedom from religion!
FGG
confusing poll.. 
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 8 2009, 09:10 PM)
If I tried to prove that “truth does not exist is true, – That would be true.
Why support unreality, Why not require religious classes of your choice?
What do you base that on?
I really think that quote I like is good
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
Why support unreality, Why not require religious classes of your choice?
What do you base that on?
I really think that quote I like is good
QUOTE
reality is that which remains when you stop believing in it.
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 9 2009, 11:21 AM)
What do you base that on?
I really think that quote I like is good
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
An atheist once had a quote similar too: Seek the Truth, and run from those that claim to know it. -- I agree with you, I say seek true love, and love each other. Sucky poll?
I really think that quote I like is good
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
An atheist once had a quote similar too: Seek the Truth, and run from those that claim to know it. -- I agree with you, I say seek true love, and love each other. Sucky poll?
I would venture to say that no truth is ever ultimate. There is always the possibility that it will be questioned, refined, and pushed to give way to a more true version of itself.
If it is true that no universal truth exists, then this statement cannot be universally true.
Therefore it must be false that no universal truth exists.
Therefore it must be true that some universal truth exists.
Is it true that truth "exists" at all? It may be proposed, claimed, defended, refined, and questioned but can it exist outside of the actions that put it forth?
If something was universally true, the only evidence of this would be its perpetual questioning.
It becomes relatively true at the moment its universality is disproven.
Left unquestioned its truth value is neither here nor there. It remains an untested proposition.
If it is true that no universal truth exists, then this statement cannot be universally true.
Therefore it must be false that no universal truth exists.
Therefore it must be true that some universal truth exists.
Is it true that truth "exists" at all? It may be proposed, claimed, defended, refined, and questioned but can it exist outside of the actions that put it forth?
If something was universally true, the only evidence of this would be its perpetual questioning.
It becomes relatively true at the moment its universality is disproven.
Left unquestioned its truth value is neither here nor there. It remains an untested proposition.
Talking about "Truth" is for politicians and people who want to dupe you.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 11 2009, 03:52 AM)
Talking about "Truth" is for politicians and people who want to dupe you.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
A detective was asked to investigate a death and not to consider any unnatural causes.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
A detective was asked to investigate a death and not to consider any unnatural causes.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 11 2009, 03:52 AM)
Talking about "Truth" is for politicians and people who want to dupe you.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
Here you are getting into the epistemology of what is real and what isn't.
I tend to use the rule of thumb that reality is a subset of existence. In other words, everything known exists, but not everything that exists is real. Dreams and fictions would be examples of things that exist but are not real.
Now you can try to figure out how truth fits into this. Truth is a value-statement about a proposition. If I say that dreams and fictions exist, that is true.
If I say that they are not real, that may or may not be true depending on how reality is defined or interpreted.
If I say that dreams and fictions do not exist, that is more clearly not true, because how can they be known if they do not exist in any form?
On the other hand, drawing the line between what exists and what is real is more difficult because there are no objective criteria, as far as I know, for distinguishing what is real from what exists but is unreal.
But, if you need a meta-epistemology to decide how to approach actual problems in the actual universe it helps to recognize that Science is Real.
Here you are getting into the epistemology of what is real and what isn't.
I tend to use the rule of thumb that reality is a subset of existence. In other words, everything known exists, but not everything that exists is real. Dreams and fictions would be examples of things that exist but are not real.
Now you can try to figure out how truth fits into this. Truth is a value-statement about a proposition. If I say that dreams and fictions exist, that is true.
If I say that they are not real, that may or may not be true depending on how reality is defined or interpreted.
If I say that dreams and fictions do not exist, that is more clearly not true, because how can they be known if they do not exist in any form?
On the other hand, drawing the line between what exists and what is real is more difficult because there are no objective criteria, as far as I know, for distinguishing what is real from what exists but is unreal.
Why is it so hard to analyze something from a physical, material perspective?
Why are you discussing whether or not dreams are real?
Dreams are subconscious fantasies, that's all.
Reality and existence are one and the same.
Why are you discussing whether or not dreams are real?
Dreams are subconscious fantasies, that's all.
Reality and existence are one and the same.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 11 2009, 05:12 PM)
I tend to use the rule of thumb that reality is a subset of existence. In other words, everything known exists,
But the incredible vast majority of what exists is not known.
Because something is not known does not mean it does not exist.
It's as if the Theists use some sort of weird convuluted logic. That if it's not known it does not exist but we know the Universe exists and has a begining therefore we must know that God made the Universe because we don't know anything else and if we don't know then the Universe doesn't have a begining.
Sorry for the run on sentence but it seems like they use some form of run on logic.
But the incredible vast majority of what exists is not known.
Because something is not known does not mean it does not exist.
It's as if the Theists use some sort of weird convuluted logic. That if it's not known it does not exist but we know the Universe exists and has a begining therefore we must know that God made the Universe because we don't know anything else and if we don't know then the Universe doesn't have a begining.
Sorry for the run on sentence but it seems like they use some form of run on logic.
Ok, I should have known not to use dreams and fictions as examples of unreal things that exist. Let's take the example of a false proposition, for example, "light has mass."
The proposition can exist, can be argued with, etc. but is it "reality" that light has mass?
You would probably say that it is not reality.
Therefore everything that exists is not real(ity). Thus reality is a sub-set of existence.
As for whether unknown things may exist . . . it is possible but no one knows if they exist until they are known, and more importantly it's not relevant since the point was that all things known exist, regardless of whether they are true, real, or not. It was not to say that unknown things do not exist. You can't know if something exists or not until you know what it is. Then, once you know what it is, it exists as knowledge with uncertain truth/reality status.
Take dark matter. It exists as knowledge, whether imaginary or real we're not sure. There is evidence but is it conclusive? The scientific discourse is a struggle to prove it as something real or an imaginary, science fiction. If it turns out to be fiction, that doesn't mean it never existed as a proposition.
The proposition can exist, can be argued with, etc. but is it "reality" that light has mass?
You would probably say that it is not reality.
Therefore everything that exists is not real(ity). Thus reality is a sub-set of existence.
As for whether unknown things may exist . . . it is possible but no one knows if they exist until they are known, and more importantly it's not relevant since the point was that all things known exist, regardless of whether they are true, real, or not. It was not to say that unknown things do not exist. You can't know if something exists or not until you know what it is. Then, once you know what it is, it exists as knowledge with uncertain truth/reality status.
Take dark matter. It exists as knowledge, whether imaginary or real we're not sure. There is evidence but is it conclusive? The scientific discourse is a struggle to prove it as something real or an imaginary, science fiction. If it turns out to be fiction, that doesn't mean it never existed as a proposition.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 11 2009, 08:41 PM)
You can't know if something exists or not until you know what it is.
Wrong.
You can know that the origin of everything exists without knowing what it is.
We know there is an explaination for why some stars are occluded. We know that there is a reason for rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching their visible mass.
The answer is called dark matter. We simply don't know everything about it.
Dark matter is another example of people learning things backwards. They read about dark matter before learning about the reasons it is postulated.
People seem to fullfil this false need of needing to know what it is before they can believe it exists by "knowing God". But we can know that there was beginning without knowing what it is.
Wrong.
You can know that the origin of everything exists without knowing what it is.
We know there is an explaination for why some stars are occluded. We know that there is a reason for rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching their visible mass.
The answer is called dark matter. We simply don't know everything about it.
Dark matter is another example of people learning things backwards. They read about dark matter before learning about the reasons it is postulated.
People seem to fullfil this false need of needing to know what it is before they can believe it exists by "knowing God". But we can know that there was beginning without knowing what it is.
QUOTE (FGG+Sep 8 2009, 10:16 PM)
The only universal TRUTH is that there is no universal TRUTH.
FGG
Does the physical exist?
Being an atheist (for me) is like saying words don't exist. Can you prove that truth doesn't exist, then I'll be an atheist? Anyone?
FGG
Does the physical exist?
Being an atheist (for me) is like saying words don't exist. Can you prove that truth doesn't exist, then I'll be an atheist? Anyone?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 11 2009, 07:45 PM)
Does the physical exist?
Being an atheist (for me) is like saying words don't exist. Can you prove that truth doesn't exist, then I'll be an atheist? Anyone?
Truth must exist.
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
Being an atheist (for me) is like saying words don't exist. Can you prove that truth doesn't exist, then I'll be an atheist? Anyone?
Truth must exist.
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 12 2009, 12:25 AM)
Truth must exist.
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
ˇAy, caramba!
NLT Ecc 1:2 "Everything is meaningless," says the Teacher, "completely meaningless!"
Newton was probably laughed at.
(*Tracer bangs head on wall, throws apple in air, floats.)
What do we gain from this discussion, what do you want rpenner?
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
ˇAy, caramba!
NLT Ecc 1:2 "Everything is meaningless," says the Teacher, "completely meaningless!"
Newton was probably laughed at.
(*Tracer bangs head on wall, throws apple in air, floats.)
What do we gain from this discussion, what do you want rpenner?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 12 2009, 12:25 AM)
Truth must exist.
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
True, and so far there is no indication that there is.
And please prove that "Cogito, ergo sum" is a valid conclusion.
I read someone said it should be something like "Cogito, cogito, ergo sum, cogito."
I believe it can be truly known and understood only if there is God.
Does the physical exist?
Cogito, ergo sum
True, and so far there is no indication that there is.
And please prove that "Cogito, ergo sum" is a valid conclusion.
I read someone said it should be something like "Cogito, cogito, ergo sum, cogito."
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 11 2009, 09:01 PM)
True, and so far there is no indication that there is.
And please prove that "Cogito, ergo sum" is a valid conclusion.
I read someone said it should be something like "Cogito, cogito, ergo sum, cogito."
buttershug,
How is it possible for me to question my own existence?
And please prove that "Cogito, ergo sum" is a valid conclusion.
I read someone said it should be something like "Cogito, cogito, ergo sum, cogito."
buttershug,
How is it possible for me to question my own existence?
You could be a figment of God's imagination.
I wish I still had the article I read. But it was a while ago.
I wish I still had the article I read. But it was a while ago.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 11 2009, 09:29 PM)
You could be a figment of God's imagination.
Even then would not that mean I exist if only for this moment?
Even then would not that mean I exist if only for this moment?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 10 2009, 09:13 PM)
If something was universally true, the only evidence of this would be its perpetual questioning.
It becomes relatively true at the moment its universality is disproven.
Left unquestioned its truth value is neither here nor there. It remains an untested proposition.
completely false.
If something is true, then it is true whether or not you've proven it by experiment, and whether or not everyone(or anyone,) believes it.
An opinion or theory might be right or wrong, but the Truth exists whether we know it or not.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Sep 12 2009, 02:36 AM)
If something is true, then it is true whether or not you've proven it by experiment.
Flabberghastingly incorrect.
Truth is merely a period of stagnation, created by a collection of paradigms. Moreover, how can there be an absolute truth, when we all exist in an ever evolving universe?
I really, really, really pity you ...... still an idiot, despite praying for your mental health 27 trillion times a day.
Flabberghastingly incorrect.
Truth is merely a period of stagnation, created by a collection of paradigms. Moreover, how can there be an absolute truth, when we all exist in an ever evolving universe?
I really, really, really pity you ...... still an idiot, despite praying for your mental health 27 trillion times a day.
Now, for it is not calling for a radical separation from the world to the extent that we do not engage the world, but that our lives should can resemble in any manner the so reigning moral/philosophical frame of reference prevalent in the lives of nonbelievers.
For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 3:13
For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 3:13
QUOTE (Geoff Mollusc+Sep 12 2009, 04:11 AM)
Flabberghastingly incorrect.
Truth is merely a period of stagnation, created by a collection of paradigms. Moreover, how can there be an absolute truth, when we all exist in an ever evolving universe?
I really, really, really pity you ...... still an idiot, despite praying for your mental health 27 trillion times a day.
Truth is not what we know.
And who said anything about a static truth?
A collection of paradigms can't be the Truth.
I agree with Pnelson that without God we can't know the whole Truth, therefore no collection of paradigms can be the truth.
When you say "Truth" I think you mean a personal truth.
Truth is merely a period of stagnation, created by a collection of paradigms. Moreover, how can there be an absolute truth, when we all exist in an ever evolving universe?
I really, really, really pity you ...... still an idiot, despite praying for your mental health 27 trillion times a day.
Truth is not what we know.
And who said anything about a static truth?
A collection of paradigms can't be the Truth.
I agree with Pnelson that without God we can't know the whole Truth, therefore no collection of paradigms can be the truth.
When you say "Truth" I think you mean a personal truth.
QUOTE (Frothy+Sep 12 2009, 10:50 AM)
Now, for it is not calling for a radical separation from the world to the extent that we do not engage the world, but that our lives should can resemble in any manner the so reigning moral/philosophical frame of reference prevalent in the lives of nonbelievers.
For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 3:13
First question; Why does that not work?
And I don't mean why does it not work for me.
I mean it obviously does not work for all of Dad1, QC, you and some others that have been on here.
If you all were corrected when wrong you would all be in complete agreement.
But you are not.
And don't give me that free will cop out.
Second question; Why do you all ignore this obvious line of questioning?
For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.
Proverbs 3:13
First question; Why does that not work?
And I don't mean why does it not work for me.
I mean it obviously does not work for all of Dad1, QC, you and some others that have been on here.
If you all were corrected when wrong you would all be in complete agreement.
But you are not.
And don't give me that free will cop out.
Second question; Why do you all ignore this obvious line of questioning?
Lots of many righteous people don't know that they are righteous (because they do not understand themselves), therefore they end up apologizing for the many things that they shouldn't.
This is called 'self abasement/low self-esteem' (Colossians 2:17).
The Lord also warns against this because it causes low self esteem, but also because it is dehumanizing/demoralizing.
This is called 'self abasement/low self-esteem' (Colossians 2:17).
The Lord also warns against this because it causes low self esteem, but also because it is dehumanizing/demoralizing.
Once again you retreat to the Bible's purported authority without attempting to internalize it. Colossians 2:16-17 must be read together.
The meaning is: Claims of authority in religious ritual and observance are crap, because only the Eternal matters in Christianity.
Naturally all the "real Christians" immediately set about setting up ritual and observance and judging each other on their observance. And to the extent that this has been going on for generations without even a hint of correction, puts the lie to any meaningful reliance on Proverbs 3:12 which you misquote above.
Dude -- even the Devil can quote scripture, and yet you continually misquote it and run into copyright violations. Lame.
The meaning is: Claims of authority in religious ritual and observance are crap, because only the Eternal matters in Christianity.
Naturally all the "real Christians" immediately set about setting up ritual and observance and judging each other on their observance. And to the extent that this has been going on for generations without even a hint of correction, puts the lie to any meaningful reliance on Proverbs 3:12 which you misquote above.
Dude -- even the Devil can quote scripture, and yet you continually misquote it and run into copyright violations. Lame.
QUOTE (Frothy+Sep 12 2009, 11:05 AM)
Lots of many righteous people don't know that they are righteous (because they do not understand themselves), therefore they end up apologizing for the many things that they shouldn't.
This is called 'self abasement/low self-esteem' (Colossians 2:17).
The Lord also warns against this because it causes low self esteem, but also because it is dehumanizing/demoralizing.
Were you answering my post before the one I"m quoting?
If I really really use my imagination I can almost believe you are.
How do you know you are not "righteous"?
Or do you mean righteous as a good thing?
Are you saying that the righteous are wrong? And that's why so few people get it right.
Why does God not correct them before they get to that stage? And it doesn't explain why the largest group of consistent Christians is so small. Someone might want to tell me how many Catholics there are, saying that they are the largest group of consistent Christians. I would have to disagree. I think most Catholics are Catholics in name only.
This is called 'self abasement/low self-esteem' (Colossians 2:17).
The Lord also warns against this because it causes low self esteem, but also because it is dehumanizing/demoralizing.
Were you answering my post before the one I"m quoting?
If I really really use my imagination I can almost believe you are.
How do you know you are not "righteous"?
Or do you mean righteous as a good thing?
Are you saying that the righteous are wrong? And that's why so few people get it right.
Why does God not correct them before they get to that stage? And it doesn't explain why the largest group of consistent Christians is so small. Someone might want to tell me how many Catholics there are, saying that they are the largest group of consistent Christians. I would have to disagree. I think most Catholics are Catholics in name only.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 11 2009, 09:21 PM)
Wrong.
You can know that the origin of everything exists without knowing what it is.
We know there is an explaination for why some stars are occluded. We know that there is a reason for rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching their visible mass.
The answer is called dark matter. We simply don't know everything about it.
Dark matter is another example of people learning things backwards. They read about dark matter before learning about the reasons it is postulated.
People seem to fullfil this false need of needing to know what it is before they can believe it exists by "knowing God". But we can know that there was beginning without knowing what it is.
The proposition that there is an origin of everything that exists is itself a proposition. Whether it is true or not is yet to be established. Furthermore, assuming that the "everything" that you believe exists coincides with the "everything" that exists beyond your ability to know it, is a big assumption. You know what you know, and you should know what you don't know. Distinguishing observed knowledge from logical conclusions based on assumptions is important.
It would be more accurate to say, "we know that there is a reason for presumed rotational speeds of galaxies based on assumptions about observations and other assumptions about their mass."
The assumption that there is a factual physicality of what is on the other side of the light that travels from that physicality to the observer shouldn't be the basis for conclusions about the total nature of that physicality.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth. This must be some effect of gravity or space-time curvature.
Whatever it is, there's no way for us to know it without it existing as a presumed unknown first. In other words, it has to exist as knowledge-potential before it can be established as an actual reality.
Things that have yet to be discovered exist initially only as indications of the existence of something not yet known. The observed data exists, but an explanatory model has to be created for the observations before the existence of something new can be established. So, whatever it is physically exists, yes, but only as a potentiality from the perspective of a human observer. The claim that it exists beyond the limitations of human knowledge may be true, but that truth is not verifiable without supporting evidence. So the claim that something exists beyond human knowledge of it is false from an empirical standpoint, no?
You can know that the origin of everything exists without knowing what it is.
We know there is an explaination for why some stars are occluded. We know that there is a reason for rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching their visible mass.
The answer is called dark matter. We simply don't know everything about it.
Dark matter is another example of people learning things backwards. They read about dark matter before learning about the reasons it is postulated.
People seem to fullfil this false need of needing to know what it is before they can believe it exists by "knowing God". But we can know that there was beginning without knowing what it is.
The proposition that there is an origin of everything that exists is itself a proposition. Whether it is true or not is yet to be established. Furthermore, assuming that the "everything" that you believe exists coincides with the "everything" that exists beyond your ability to know it, is a big assumption. You know what you know, and you should know what you don't know. Distinguishing observed knowledge from logical conclusions based on assumptions is important.
QUOTE
We know that there is a reason for rotational speeds of Galaxies not matching their visible mass.
It would be more accurate to say, "we know that there is a reason for presumed rotational speeds of galaxies based on assumptions about observations and other assumptions about their mass."
The assumption that there is a factual physicality of what is on the other side of the light that travels from that physicality to the observer shouldn't be the basis for conclusions about the total nature of that physicality.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth. This must be some effect of gravity or space-time curvature.
Whatever it is, there's no way for us to know it without it existing as a presumed unknown first. In other words, it has to exist as knowledge-potential before it can be established as an actual reality.
Things that have yet to be discovered exist initially only as indications of the existence of something not yet known. The observed data exists, but an explanatory model has to be created for the observations before the existence of something new can be established. So, whatever it is physically exists, yes, but only as a potentiality from the perspective of a human observer. The claim that it exists beyond the limitations of human knowledge may be true, but that truth is not verifiable without supporting evidence. So the claim that something exists beyond human knowledge of it is false from an empirical standpoint, no?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 05:38 PM)
It would be more accurate to say, "we know that there is a reason for presumed rotational speeds of galaxies based on assumptions about observations and other assumptions about their mass."
You f*cking idiot. You have no logical reason to doubt those observations. You have a serious problem with discrediting the scientific process in order to lend legitimacy to your creationist idiocy.
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth. This must be some effect of gravity or space-time curvature.
For all your whining about science, your alternatives are twice as complicated, and infinitely more ridiculous. Retarded.
You have yet to present one interesting statement. Your posts have 0 science content, and mostly just point out your acceptance of common (and obvious!) misconceptions.
What about these galaxies that seem to be spinning faster than the speed of light? Is it possible that they appear to be smaller than they actually are because of the large dent in space-time caused by the large amount of matter in a galaxy? If that were the case, the smaller apparent size of the galaxy would still rotate at the same speed.
What the hell does this mean? And where did you get your information? If you promise to answer those questions I promise not to send you bad vibes and call you names.
You f*cking idiot. You have no logical reason to doubt those observations. You have a serious problem with discrediting the scientific process in order to lend legitimacy to your creationist idiocy.
QUOTE
The assumption that there is a factual physicality of what is on the other side of the light that travels from that physicality to the observer shouldn't be the basis for conclusions about the total nature of that physicality.
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The assumption that there is a factual physicality of what is on the other side of the light that travels from that physicality to the observer shouldn't be the basis for conclusions about the total nature of that physicality. |
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth. This must be some effect of gravity or space-time curvature.
For all your whining about science, your alternatives are twice as complicated, and infinitely more ridiculous. Retarded.
You have yet to present one interesting statement. Your posts have 0 science content, and mostly just point out your acceptance of common (and obvious!) misconceptions.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 09:38 PM)
Furthermore, assuming that the "everything" that you believe exists coincides with the "everything" that exists beyond your ability to know it, is a big assumption. You know what you know, and you should know what you don't know. Distinguishing observed knowledge from logical conclusions based on assumptions is important.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth.
Are you saying that there can not be anything we have no clue or indication of?
That if it exists we at least have an indication of it?
I am saying we have gaps in our knowledge that are so profound that we don't even have the merest hint of them. but Theists can't stand that and must invent stuff out of nothing.
Who said that the stars we can't see are dark??????????
The light from them is blocked. That is the simplest explanation. We can't see what is blocking the light from those stars.
I believe that the "dark" stars are not dark, but rather their light is somehow diverted from its trajectory before reaching Earth.
Are you saying that there can not be anything we have no clue or indication of?
That if it exists we at least have an indication of it?
I am saying we have gaps in our knowledge that are so profound that we don't even have the merest hint of them. but Theists can't stand that and must invent stuff out of nothing.
Who said that the stars we can't see are dark??????????
The light from them is blocked. That is the simplest explanation. We can't see what is blocking the light from those stars.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 12 2009, 09:50 PM)
You f*cking idiot. You have no logical reason to doubt those observations. You have a serious problem with discrediting the scientific process in order to lend legitimacy to your creationist idiocy.
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
For all your whining about science, your alternatives are twice as complicated, and infinitely more ridiculous. Retarded.
You have yet to present one interesting statement. Your posts have 0 science content, and mostly just point out your acceptance of common (and obvious!) misconceptions.
FBM, your insults have stopped bothering me - but thanks for trying.
Why do you assume that all the lines on the grid of space curvature ultimately reach the Earth?
If gravity bends space-time, then doesn't it seem logical that much of it would bend in directions whose lines would never reach the Earth?
If that were the case, light from some stars would not reach Earth, and therefore not be visible. That does not mean that the mass of these stars would not have gravitational effects on other matter whose light DOES reach the Earth, right?
What about these galaxies that seem to be spinning faster than the speed of light? Is it possible that they appear to be smaller than they actually are because of the large dent in space-time caused by the large amount of matter in a galaxy? If that were the case, the smaller apparent size of the galaxy would still rotate at the same speed. This would lead observers to believe that a star in that galaxy is moving far faster than its actual speed if the volume of the galaxy was apparent in its actual distances. Is this an impossible explanation?
Finally, I am not approaching any of these physical questions with any kind of creationism. I like pondering and discussing creationism as a SPIRITUAL philosophy. If applying scientific logic is a more interesting approach to a particular problem, I go for that. I don't feel the need to elevate physics to a metaphysical level, though, as some people seem to.
We know that what we see is physically there. Are there phantom stars that create false light? Dark matter is the matter that has not been observed, for one reason or another.
For all your whining about science, your alternatives are twice as complicated, and infinitely more ridiculous. Retarded.
You have yet to present one interesting statement. Your posts have 0 science content, and mostly just point out your acceptance of common (and obvious!) misconceptions.
FBM, your insults have stopped bothering me - but thanks for trying.
Why do you assume that all the lines on the grid of space curvature ultimately reach the Earth?
If gravity bends space-time, then doesn't it seem logical that much of it would bend in directions whose lines would never reach the Earth?
If that were the case, light from some stars would not reach Earth, and therefore not be visible. That does not mean that the mass of these stars would not have gravitational effects on other matter whose light DOES reach the Earth, right?
What about these galaxies that seem to be spinning faster than the speed of light? Is it possible that they appear to be smaller than they actually are because of the large dent in space-time caused by the large amount of matter in a galaxy? If that were the case, the smaller apparent size of the galaxy would still rotate at the same speed. This would lead observers to believe that a star in that galaxy is moving far faster than its actual speed if the volume of the galaxy was apparent in its actual distances. Is this an impossible explanation?
Finally, I am not approaching any of these physical questions with any kind of creationism. I like pondering and discussing creationism as a SPIRITUAL philosophy. If applying scientific logic is a more interesting approach to a particular problem, I go for that. I don't feel the need to elevate physics to a metaphysical level, though, as some people seem to.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 08:56 PM)
Finally, I am not approaching any of these physical questions with any kind of creationism. I like pondering and discussing creationism as a SPIRITUAL philosophy. If applying scientific logic is a more interesting approach to a particular problem, I go for that. I don't feel the need to elevate physics to a metaphysical level, though, as some people seem to.
Creationism is a corrupting force. If you reject evidence in one avenue of science, you can just as easily ignore evidence in other avenues. Unfortunately, you don't even bother to do a bare minimum of reading on a subject before you criticize it. It appears that the entirety of your knowledge of physics was derived from watching television.
Creationism is a corrupting force. If you reject evidence in one avenue of science, you can just as easily ignore evidence in other avenues. Unfortunately, you don't even bother to do a bare minimum of reading on a subject before you criticize it. It appears that the entirety of your knowledge of physics was derived from watching television.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 08:56 PM)
What about these galaxies that seem to be spinning faster than the speed of light? Is it possible that they appear to be smaller than they actually are because of the large dent in space-time caused by the large amount of matter in a galaxy? If that were the case, the smaller apparent size of the galaxy would still rotate at the same speed.
What the hell does this mean? And where did you get your information? If you promise to answer those questions I promise not to send you bad vibes and call you names.
QUOTE (orestis+Sep 12 2009, 09:37 PM)
What the hell does this mean? And where did you get your information? If you promise to answer those questions I promise not to send you bad vibes and call you names.
He basically watches the science channel and then posts his interpretation of the buzzwords that he absorbed.
He basically watches the science channel and then posts his interpretation of the buzzwords that he absorbed.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 01:23 AM)
Creationism is a corrupting force. If you reject evidence in one avenue of science, you can just as easily ignore evidence in other avenues. Unfortunately, you don't even bother to do a bare minimum of reading on a subject before you criticize it. It appears that the entirety of your knowledge of physics was derived from watching television.
You are just oversensitive to creationism. Why should it have any more corrupting potential than, say, witchcraft or alchemy? You probably just get tired of having to defend science against creationists, which is understandable because there's no reason to supplant science with creationism and more than there is reason to elevate science to a theology, although it does have theological tints in that it deals with truth, which is a concept related to that of God - but that's a topic for a different thread.
Watching television is, in my opinion, a poor way to understand physics because you can't see how the machine is working until you open it up, and if you do that while it's running you are at risk of electric shock.
Physics is based on empirical knowledge of matter interacting with energy. You always seem more interested in debating the source of someone's knowledge than actual approaches to understanding how matter interacts with energy.
You are just oversensitive to creationism. Why should it have any more corrupting potential than, say, witchcraft or alchemy? You probably just get tired of having to defend science against creationists, which is understandable because there's no reason to supplant science with creationism and more than there is reason to elevate science to a theology, although it does have theological tints in that it deals with truth, which is a concept related to that of God - but that's a topic for a different thread.
Watching television is, in my opinion, a poor way to understand physics because you can't see how the machine is working until you open it up, and if you do that while it's running you are at risk of electric shock.
Physics is based on empirical knowledge of matter interacting with energy. You always seem more interested in debating the source of someone's knowledge than actual approaches to understanding how matter interacts with energy.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 12 2009, 09:45 PM)
You are just oversensitive to creationism. Why should it have any more corrupting potential than, say, witchcraft or alchemy?
Creationism is a virus that makes people suspicious of science. Global warming wouldn't be so controversial if people didn't already suspect that scientists are lying about evolution.
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
Physics is based on empirical knowledge of matter interacting with energy. You always seem more interested in debating the source of someone's knowledge than actual approaches to understanding how matter interacts with energy.
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
Creationism is a virus that makes people suspicious of science. Global warming wouldn't be so controversial if people didn't already suspect that scientists are lying about evolution.
QUOTE
Watching television is, in my opinion, a poor way to understand physics because you can't see how the machine is working until you open it up, and if you do that while it's running you are at risk of electric shock.
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Watching television is, in my opinion, a poor way to understand physics because you can't see how the machine is working until you open it up, and if you do that while it's running you are at risk of electric shock. |
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
Physics is based on empirical knowledge of matter interacting with energy. You always seem more interested in debating the source of someone's knowledge than actual approaches to understanding how matter interacts with energy.
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
Bumble bees really can fly.
the media has never done a good job of distributing information. I think the "science says that bumble bees can't fly" is one of the worst examples. Although this "galaxies appearing to move faster than light" might be it's replacement.
I've never had first hand knowledge of something that makes the papers where they got everything right. I'm sure science reporting is even worse.
Who said it appears that Galaxies appear to be moving faster than light?
Why did they say that?
How do they even tell speed from a photograph?
the media has never done a good job of distributing information. I think the "science says that bumble bees can't fly" is one of the worst examples. Although this "galaxies appearing to move faster than light" might be it's replacement.
I've never had first hand knowledge of something that makes the papers where they got everything right. I'm sure science reporting is even worse.
Who said it appears that Galaxies appear to be moving faster than light?
Why did they say that?
How do they even tell speed from a photograph?
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 12 2009, 10:01 PM)
the media has never done a good job of distributing information. I think the "science says that bumble bees can't fly" is one of the worst examples. Although this "galaxies appearing to move faster than light" might be it's replacement.
The fact that the "missing link" fallacy persists and continues to be reported in the media is another example.
The fact that the "missing link" fallacy persists and continues to be reported in the media is another example.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 01:55 AM)
Creationism is a virus that makes people suspicious of science. Global warming wouldn't be so controversial if people didn't already suspect that scientists are lying about evolution.
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
It is disturbing that science, an epistemology founded on skepticism and the critical use of reason and empiricism to question traditional knowledge, could turn into a positive form of knowledge where skepticism of it is regarded as unscientific.
Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate. If global-warming is happening, scientists get to be the heros that save the Earth. Do you recognize the will to be heroic in the personal interests of any scientists you know? I know I do.
I don't know. I've never heard of this, let alone watched it. Maybe if I had, I would not sound like it as much, or at least I would be building on it instead of repeating it, which is what it sounds like I am doing from what you say.
I don't know. I've never heard of this, let alone watched it. Maybe if I had, I would not sound like it as much, or at least I would be building on it instead of repeating it, which is what it sounds like I am doing from what you say.
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
I try to take what I understand and push the ideas further. That's the point of science, in my view. Even if a car can't fly, it enhances my understanding of science and others' ability to apply it when the specific reasons a car can, can't, or could be made to - fly are explored.
I have read interesting points made by you and others as a result of short-sightedness on my part. E.g. I hadn't thought about the problem of deceleration after launching from lunar orbit at a high combined-vector speed. You're critique made me think this further, and I asked about using gravity in some way to assist the deceleration to Mars. It doesn't matter how good or bad the questions or answers are - the effect of negotiating them pushes the discussion in more fruitful directions.
When the ideas progress to a certain point, critics with more expertise step in and inject information that rectifies poor assumptions and other mistakes. Everyone contributes and ideas evolve as a result.
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
It is disturbing that science, an epistemology founded on skepticism and the critical use of reason and empiricism to question traditional knowledge, could turn into a positive form of knowledge where skepticism of it is regarded as unscientific.
Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate. If global-warming is happening, scientists get to be the heros that save the Earth. Do you recognize the will to be heroic in the personal interests of any scientists you know? I know I do.
QUOTE
Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?"
I don't know. I've never heard of this, let alone watched it. Maybe if I had, I would not sound like it as much, or at least I would be building on it instead of repeating it, which is what it sounds like I am doing from what you say.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then why does your scientific understanding sound like an abridged version of "The Universe?" |
I don't know. I've never heard of this, let alone watched it. Maybe if I had, I would not sound like it as much, or at least I would be building on it instead of repeating it, which is what it sounds like I am doing from what you say.
It isn't the source of your knowledge, it's the completeness. It's like you see a car drive by for the first time and then say "maybe it can fly!" You see one aspect of a phenomenon and then make assumptions based on your imagination rather than reality.
I try to take what I understand and push the ideas further. That's the point of science, in my view. Even if a car can't fly, it enhances my understanding of science and others' ability to apply it when the specific reasons a car can, can't, or could be made to - fly are explored.
I have read interesting points made by you and others as a result of short-sightedness on my part. E.g. I hadn't thought about the problem of deceleration after launching from lunar orbit at a high combined-vector speed. You're critique made me think this further, and I asked about using gravity in some way to assist the deceleration to Mars. It doesn't matter how good or bad the questions or answers are - the effect of negotiating them pushes the discussion in more fruitful directions.
When the ideas progress to a certain point, critics with more expertise step in and inject information that rectifies poor assumptions and other mistakes. Everyone contributes and ideas evolve as a result.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 13 2009, 10:38 AM)
It is disturbing that science, an epistemology founded on skepticism and the critical use of reason and empiricism to question traditional knowledge, could turn into a positive form of knowledge where skepticism of it is regarded as unscientific.
Science is skepticism. Scientific consensus is the best understanding available to the human race. You're still not getting this.
Again, you fail to understand how scientific careers are made. CONTRADICTING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THE BEST THING A SCIENTIST CAN DO FOR HIS CAREER. You should know this, but instead you are letting your religious and political views dictate what you think is true or false. You are getting it assbackwards.
Again, you fail to understand how scientific careers are made. CONTRADICTING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THE BEST THING A SCIENTIST CAN DO FOR HIS CAREER. You should know this, but instead you are letting your religious and political views dictate what you think is true or false. You are getting it assbackwards.
I try to take what I understand and push the ideas further.
And failing.
I don't have time to correct every single one of your gross misconceptions about science.
Before you post back here again, I want you to read this page:
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
Don't come back until you've at least skimmed it.
Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate.
You are the stupidest person who ever touched a keyboard.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLB529994
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/03/arctic-warming.html
Whoever produced this quote, it is a classic! How can you claim (or teach) that you know the truth that no one knows truth?
Because it's true? All you know is that you don't know. Isn't that Buddhist?
Science is skepticism. Scientific consensus is the best understanding available to the human race. You're still not getting this.
QUOTE
Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate. If global-warming is happening, scientists get to be the heros that save the Earth. Do you recognize the will to be heroic in the personal interests of any scientists you know? I know I do.
Again, you fail to understand how scientific careers are made. CONTRADICTING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THE BEST THING A SCIENTIST CAN DO FOR HIS CAREER. You should know this, but instead you are letting your religious and political views dictate what you think is true or false. You are getting it assbackwards.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate. If global-warming is happening, scientists get to be the heros that save the Earth. Do you recognize the will to be heroic in the personal interests of any scientists you know? I know I do. |
Again, you fail to understand how scientific careers are made. CONTRADICTING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS THE BEST THING A SCIENTIST CAN DO FOR HIS CAREER. You should know this, but instead you are letting your religious and political views dictate what you think is true or false. You are getting it assbackwards.
I try to take what I understand and push the ideas further.
And failing.
QUOTE
I have read interesting points made by you and others as a result of short-sightedness on my part. E.g. I hadn't thought about the problem of deceleration after launching from lunar orbit at a high combined-vector speed. You're critique made me think this further, and I asked about using gravity in some way to assist the deceleration to Mars. It doesn't matter how good or bad the questions or answers are - the effect of negotiating them pushes the discussion in more fruitful directions.
I don't have time to correct every single one of your gross misconceptions about science.
Before you post back here again, I want you to read this page:
Talk Origins: Evidence for Evolution
Don't come back until you've at least skimmed it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 13 2009, 02:38 PM)
When the ideas progress to a certain point, critics with more expertise step in and inject information that rectifies poor assumptions and other mistakes. Everyone contributes and ideas evolve as a result.
not when the critics with more expertise are stepping in only need a highshcool level understanding.
Do you also try and coach pro sports?
What would you think of someone giving coaching advice to pro baseball teams that didn't know that four balls means the batter gets a walk?
It's skeptism of the raw data that is considered unscientific.
And if the climate suddendly after hundreds of thousands of years stopped changing, I think that would be quite something.
not when the critics with more expertise are stepping in only need a highshcool level understanding.
Do you also try and coach pro sports?
What would you think of someone giving coaching advice to pro baseball teams that didn't know that four balls means the batter gets a walk?
It's skeptism of the raw data that is considered unscientific.
And if the climate suddendly after hundreds of thousands of years stopped changing, I think that would be quite something.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 13 2009, 10:38 AM)
Global warming consensus is obviously so strong among scientists because of the conformist and interest-driven aspects of professional science. There is absolutely no interest for science to dispel the myth of global warming because there's simply less money and fame in studying an essentially unchanging climate.
You are the stupidest person who ever touched a keyboard.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSLB529994
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/09/03/arctic-warming.html
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 13 2009, 12:23 PM)
Record coldest July in 6 US states
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Do you not understand the concept of AVERAGE TEMPERATURE??
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Do you not understand the concept of AVERAGE TEMPERATURE??
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 13 2009, 12:28 PM)
Do you not understand the concept of AVERAGE TEMPERATURE??
Yes, This was the record coldest average temperature for July in these states.
Yes, This was the record coldest average temperature for July in these states.
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 13 2009, 12:23 PM)
If you prefere here are some record coldest temperatures for US cities on July 20, 2009.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ted=Get+Records
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ted=Get+Records
QUOTE (orestis+Sep 13 2009, 12:46 PM)
You must not get out much.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1876299,00.html
So, we have record highs and record lows.
Whats new?
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8...1876299,00.html
So, we have record highs and record lows.
Whats new?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 13 2009, 12:50 PM)
If you prefere here are some record coldest temperatures for US cities on July 20, 2009.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ted=Get+Records
Do you want to play dueling links?
http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009/07...uilding-in.html
Or do you want to understand Average? Global Average? Arctic passage is open average?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...ted=Get+Records
Do you want to play dueling links?
http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com/2009/07...uilding-in.html
Or do you want to understand Average? Global Average? Arctic passage is open average?
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 13 2009, 04:41 PM)
Yes, This was the record coldest average temperature for July in these states.
I don't think you get the scale of it.
Try looking at decades instead of months.
I don't think you get the scale of it.
Try looking at decades instead of months.
There are both hot records cold records. Over any reasonable length of time, guess what? There are more hot records, although what really counts is the average. See capitalclimate.blogspot.com for more examples.
QUOTE (CapitalClimate+Sep 13 2009, 08:30 PM)
There are both hot records cold records. Over any reasonable length of time, guess what? There are more hot records, although what really counts is the average.
Plus it's probably not good to argue a trend using very short time periods when you are at the extreme of a cycle.
Doesn't the solar sunspot cycle cause a bigger variation than the trend has made so far? Wait six years and then talk about montly averages but talk globally.
Plus it's probably not good to argue a trend using very short time periods when you are at the extreme of a cycle.
Doesn't the solar sunspot cycle cause a bigger variation than the trend has made so far? Wait six years and then talk about montly averages but talk globally.
Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
Daily Monitoring of Global Average Temperatures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-...e-temperatures/
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
Daily Monitoring of Global Average Temperatures
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-...e-temperatures/
Here is a reason that global warming could result in warmer winters and colder summers:
If the average global temperature was rising, this would result in an earlier spring in frozen forests.
As a result, tree foliage would produce more shade sooner in the those forests.
The greater shade would generate more cool air than was the case when the forests were thawing later and re-foliating less.
Still, because more heat is getting trapped in the atmosphere by the increased CO2, winter temperatures would stay higher than if more heat was being radiated into space.
These generally warmer winters would also contribute to less deep-freezing and therefore earlier thawing of forests in the spring.
So increased foliation is the best candidate for cooler summers, especially in regions where there is lots of tree-cover that freezes in the winter, although air does tend to blow around a lot, I believe.
Feel free to punch holes in this.
If the average global temperature was rising, this would result in an earlier spring in frozen forests.
As a result, tree foliage would produce more shade sooner in the those forests.
The greater shade would generate more cool air than was the case when the forests were thawing later and re-foliating less.
Still, because more heat is getting trapped in the atmosphere by the increased CO2, winter temperatures would stay higher than if more heat was being radiated into space.
These generally warmer winters would also contribute to less deep-freezing and therefore earlier thawing of forests in the spring.
So increased foliation is the best candidate for cooler summers, especially in regions where there is lots of tree-cover that freezes in the winter, although air does tend to blow around a lot, I believe.
Feel free to punch holes in this.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 9 2009, 11:21 AM)
What do you base that on?
I really think that quote I like is good: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
I like the quote also.
All truth is knowable, just not always by us. Some of us wish to know (relationship) God. We can know 1+1=2 if Prime Reality or Jesus/Absolute Truth exist. People create their own (unreal) reality. Unreal; because they don't have all knowledge. Imagination, meaning, and information require a mind-- intelligence.
I really think that quote I like is good: Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
Ok so we can't know what the "truth" is but that does not mean it does not exist.
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
I like the quote also.
All truth is knowable, just not always by us. Some of us wish to know (relationship) God. We can know 1+1=2 if Prime Reality or Jesus/Absolute Truth exist. People create their own (unreal) reality. Unreal; because they don't have all knowledge. Imagination, meaning, and information require a mind-- intelligence.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 17 2009, 12:54 AM)
I like the quote also.
All truth is knowable, just not always by us. Some of us wish to know (relationship) God. We can know 1+1=2 if Prime Reality or Jesus/Absolute Truth exist. People create their own (unreal) reality. Inreal because they don't have all knowledge. Imagination, meaning, and information require a mind-- intelligence.
And if the relationship with God is; we made him up?
Do you really want to know that?
All truth is knowable, just not always by us. Some of us wish to know (relationship) God. We can know 1+1=2 if Prime Reality or Jesus/Absolute Truth exist. People create their own (unreal) reality. Inreal because they don't have all knowledge. Imagination, meaning, and information require a mind-- intelligence.
And if the relationship with God is; we made him up?
Do you really want to know that?
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 17 2009, 01:05 AM)
And if the relationship with God is; we made him up?
Do you really want to know that?
Know what? I do not want kids to be taught A relativism ideology/worldview- -nothing matters is The Way to life - that is a false teaching. They do matter. Truth and Love (also nonphysical) are worth it. You reap what you sow.
Do you really want to know that?
Know what? I do not want kids to be taught A relativism ideology/worldview- -nothing matters is The Way to life - that is a false teaching. They do matter. Truth and Love (also nonphysical) are worth it. You reap what you sow.
QUOTE
Why not teach the truth. We don't know what the Truth is.
Whoever produced this quote, it is a classic! How can you claim (or teach) that you know the truth that no one knows truth?
Because it's true? All you know is that you don't know. Isn't that Buddhist?
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.