Let's compare Jesus and Muhammed (and debate homosexuality) (and Tombstone).

#876
#876
IPorange said:
I've been monitoring the thread. I had to go up to the mountains and do some field work for a class this afternoon.

Pretty crazy stuff. Gramps is pulling a major O'Reilly/tides moment in here.

And the irony of a follower of Christ arguing Horace didn't exist is certainly rich.
Click to expand...

I had the pleasure of reading a Cahill book last year; I thought that was the pinnacle of Christian intellectual negligence. Today, I've been proven wrong.
 
#877
#877
therealUT said:
I had the pleasure of reading a Cahill book last year; I thought that was the pinnacle of Christian intellectual negligence. Today, I've been proven wrong.
Click to expand...

Can you imagine the thrill of victory as he stumbled across that gem? He silently says a prayer of thanks to Jesus, as he prepares to drop such a heavy load of physical truth on us, the likes of which we have never seen.
 
#878
#878
fl0at said:
Can you imagine the thrill of victory as he stumbled across that gem? He silently says a prayer of thanks to Jesus, as he prepares to drop such a heavy load of physical truth on us, the likes of which we have never seen.
Click to expand...

Because "dark matter" is not talked about ad nauseum by Hawking and Michio Kaku.
 
#879
#879
I like this picture IPO posted earlier today, so I'm bringing it back:

boats-float.jpeg
 
#881
#881
therealUT said:
Re: black holes.

They belong to theory. The existence of black holes is based upon scientific models of what we know. I do not know of anyway to practically measure black holes; it is quite possible that they might not exist in reality (no one will ever know). If they do or do not exist, it does nothing to the credibility of science; as stated above, these things are conclusions drawn from the premises of the Theory of Relativity. Most in the scientific community already concede that the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics make competing claims in theoretical physics, so while humans certainly see tangible benefits as the byproduct of scientists working on these theories, one of them, most likely, must ultimately be false (if not both).

I do not understand what you are trying to prove though by continuing to throw out this "black hole" carrot, though.
Click to expand...

Okay... let me simplify it for you.

  1. Many have been asking for an example of something that can't be measured.
    My understanding is that black holes can not be measured. Rather, the effects on matter around them are measured.
  2. You and others are seemingly having a fun time mocking gramps about darkness being the absence of light.
    Black holes are still dark and yet they not only contain light, they absorb it. Wouldn't this be contradictory to what you and others are claiming?
  3. I'm just looking for some feedback to explain black holes. Do you really believe they don't exist? Or, would you and others continue to make fun of someone else instead of addressing an interesting topic?
 
#882
#882
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Do you really believe they don't exist? Or, would you and others continue to make fun of someone else instead of addressing an interesting topic?
[/LIST]
Click to expand...

They are theoretically possible, according to the Theory of Relativity. I place neither belief nor disbelief in their existence; kind of like my approach to God.

Regardless, Gramps stance on darkness is ridiculous, ergo he is being ridiculed.

By bringing black holes into the discussion, though, you are, in effect, arguing the following:

- black holes may or may not exist; they cannot be measured.

- God may or may not exist; God cannot be measured.

Or, have I missed something?
 
#883
#883
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Okay... let me simplify it for you.

  1. Many have been asking for an example of something that can't be measured.
    My understanding is that black holes can not be measured. Rather, the effects on matter around them are measured.
  2. You and others are seemingly having a fun time mocking gramps about darkness being the absence of light.
    Black holes are still dark and yet they not only contain light, they absorb it. Wouldn't this be contradictory to what you and others are claiming?
  3. I'm just looking for some feedback to explain black holes. Do you really believe they don't exist? Or, would you and others continue to make fun of someone else instead of addressing an interesting topic?
Click to expand...

As to 2: As I understand black hole theory, and it has been several years since my last formal physics class, black holes do not actually "absorb" light.

Basically, mass is condensed to such a level that gravitational pull is stronger than light's escape velocity, and therefore light and matter cannot escape.

Theoretically, if you could travel faster than the speed of light, and were able to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, you could escape a black hole. Unfortunately, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and therefore you will not see light escape a black hole.

As for absorption, they are not vacuum cleaners. Anything that enters the original space occupied by the body will be sucked in by the strong gravitational pull, but skirting the edge will not suck you in.
 
#884
#884
Furthermore, in addition to the explanation of #2, you can qualitatively measure a black hole and thus, you can measure a black hole.

You could quantitatively measure a black hole if you were able to isolate the mass of the hole. Theoretically, you could do this by measuring the gravitational pull of the black hole relative to the pull by other near by bodies.

Through the gravitational pull, you can extrapolate the mass and determine, among other things, the escape velocity necessary to leave the black hole.

Thus, by my understanding, black holes can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured.
 
#885
#885
therealUT said:
They are theoretically possible, according to the Theory of Relativity. I place neither belief nor disbelief in their existence; kind of like my approach to God.

Regardless, Gramps stance on darkness is ridiculous, ergo he is being ridiculed.

By bringing black holes into the discussion, though, you are, in effect, arguing the following:

- black holes may or may not exist; they cannot be measured.

- God may or may not exist; God cannot be measured.

Or, have I missed something?
Click to expand...

I didn't mention God once in my post, so you would be making a bad assumption and apparently missed the point of my post. I was simply responding to those who were asking for an example of something that can't be measured, as well as additional insight into the lightness/darkness discussion.

Based on the following I believe most scientists, astrophysicists, etc. believe black holes exist... as do I. Further, they are "measured" much like an earlier example was given about measuring the wind. Do you neither believe or disbelieve in it's existence as well?

Ever since Albert Einstein came up with his general theory of relativity, black holes has been central to our knowledge of the Universe.

Now experts say they have shown that the theoretical phenomenon, whose gravitational pull is thought to hold galaxies together, exist "beyond any reasonable doubt".

The team of scientists spent 16 years studying the existence of a super massive black hole thought to be at the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way.

While the black hole itself is invisible to the eye, the team proved its existence by tracking the motions of 28 stars circling around it.

Just as swirling leaves caught in a gust of wind can provide clues about air currents, so the stars' movements reveal information about forces at work at the galactic centre.
Click to expand...

fl0at said:
As to 2: As I understand black hole theory, and it has been several years since my last formal physics class, black holes do not actually "absorb" light.

Basically, mass is condensed to such a level that gravitational pull is stronger than light's escape velocity, and therefore light and matter cannot escape.

Theoretically, if you could travel faster than the speed of light, and were able to escape the gravitational pull of a black hole, you could escape a black hole. Unfortunately, the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and therefore you will not see light escape a black hole.

As for absorption, they are not vacuum cleaners. Anything that enters the original space occupied by the body will be sucked in by the strong gravitational pull, but skirting the edge will not suck you in.
Click to expand...

This seems quite reasonable. And from the above I gather that light does in fact exist within a black hole, but yet lightness does not exist. Therefore, darkness can exist without the absence of light. As to the definition of "absorb" we are likely disagreeing over semantics. A proper definition would include "to retain wholly, without reflection or transmission."
 
#886
#886
IBlvNTmWrk said:
This seems quite reasonable. And from the above I gather that light does in fact exist within a black hole, but yet lightness does not exist. Therefore, darkness can exist without the absence of light. As to the definition of "absorb" we are likely disagreeing over semantics. A proper definition would include "to retain wholly, without reflection or transmission."
Click to expand...

No no, within the black hole, there would be light, unless light decays.

We cannot observe the light because it cannot be reflected back to us because its velocity is less than gravitational pull. Simply because we cannot see light within does not mean that it is not lighted.

Much as seeing a blacked out house does not mean that someone within does not have a light on.

Because light cannot escape the black hole, it appears, to us, to be black, because, as you know of color, or absence of color, without reflection, there is no color.

Within the hole itself, it may be as bright as any level of light retained.
 
#887
#887
Upon further reflection, and as an amendment to my previous: Whether light can exist in wave or particle form in such a high gravitational state is unknown to me, personally.

It is conceivable that since gravity exceeds the speed of light, that light, upon entry, is flattened (in wave form) and something else in particle form, such that the moment light passes the event horizon, it ceased to be light, and simply becomes something else entirely.

In that instance, there would be no light, as light would no longer exist in wave or particle form and darkness would still be due to the absence of light, as light has been transformed to something entirely different.
 
#888
#888
fl0at said:
No no, within the black hole, there would be light, unless light decays.

We cannot observe the light because it cannot be reflected back to us because its velocity is less than gravitational pull. Simply because we cannot see light within does not mean that it is not lighted.

Much as seeing a blacked out house does not mean that someone within does not have a light on.

Because light cannot escape the black hole, it appears, to us, to be black, because, as you know of color, or absence of color, without reflection, there is no color.

Within the hole itself, it may be as bright as any level of light retained.
Click to expand...

fl0at said:
Upon further reflection, and as an amendment to my previous: Whether light can exist in wave or particle form in such a high gravitational state is unknown to me, personally.

It is conceivable that since gravity exceeds the speed of light, that light, upon entry, is flattened (in wave form) and something else in particle form, such that the moment light passes the event horizon, it ceased to be light, and simply becomes something else entirely.

In that instance, there would be no light, as light would no longer exist in wave or particle form and darkness would still be due to the absence of light, as light has been transformed to something entirely different.
Click to expand...

Sounds reasonable in theory. What I gathered from your first post is that lightness could not be seen because it was being blocked by gravity... also something that can not be seen. Quite ironic. :) I'm not really in the mood for a debate, I just felt like the conversation was a bit one-sided earlier so thought I would try to help balance the discussion somewhat.
 
#889
#889
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Sounds reasonable in theory. What I gathered from your first post is that lightness could not be seen because it was being blocked by gravity... also something that can not be seen. Quite ironic. :) I'm not really in the mood for a debate, I just felt like the conversation was a bit one-sided earlier so thought I would try to help balance the discussion somewhat.
Click to expand...

I accept seen or measured (with seen being a type of measurement) as acceptable defense of existence. Either will suffice for me.
 
#890
#890
I think it should be pointed out that black is the absorbtion of all light and white is the reflection of all light, the colors in between are the reflection of the color of light and absorption of all others on the color band of light.

Just in case nobody knew that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#891
#891
VOLatile said:
I think it should be pointed out that black is the absorbtion of all light and white is the reflection of all light, the colors in between are the reflection of the color of light and absorption of all others on the color band of light.

Just in case nobody knew that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Black is the absence white. It can't be measured, ergo, Horace doesn't exist.
 
#892
#892
Speaking of black hoes, did you guys see what that Duke lacrosse accuser did?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#893
#893
Just saw a very interesting documentary tonight.....

In 1990, while they were building the Peace Park in Jerusalem, they found the tomb of the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, who was the High Priest, whom delivered Jesus to Pontius Pilate. They dated the tomb to 1st century Jerusalem, and found two nails in it, that could perhaps be directly related to Jesus' crucifixion.

So, they found the tomb of the man, whom according to all 4 gospels, help deliver Jesus to the Romans. That's some pretty interesting facts.
 
#894
#894
g8terh8ter_eric said:
So, they found the tomb of the man, whom according to all 4 gospels, help deliver Jesus to the Romans. That's some pretty interesting facts.
Click to expand...

That a man named Jesus lived, rebelled and was crucified existed is inconsequential. The issue many have is whether that man was the son of a god that may or may not exist.

Some may not believe the man ever existed. Most all non-believers will agree that the man, if he did exist, was merely a man, and that stories of him have been greatly exaggerated.

Like this dude I knew from Nantucket.
 
#895
#895
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Just saw a very interesting documentary tonight.....

In 1990, while they were building the Peace Park in Jerusalem, they found the tomb of the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, who was the High Priest, whom delivered Jesus to Pontius Pilate. They dated the tomb to 1st century Jerusalem, and found two nails in it, that could perhaps be directly related to Jesus' crucifixion.

So, they found the tomb of the man, whom according to all 4 gospels, help deliver Jesus to the Romans. That's some pretty interesting facts.
Click to expand...

Jesus was a liberal activist
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#897
#897
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Just saw a very interesting documentary tonight.....

In 1990, while they were building the Peace Park in Jerusalem, they found the tomb of the Jewish High Priest, Caiaphas, who was the High Priest, whom delivered Jesus to Pontius Pilate. They dated the tomb to 1st century Jerusalem, and found two nails in it, that could perhaps be directly related to Jesus' crucifixion.

So, they found the tomb of the man, whom according to all 4 gospels, help deliver Jesus to the Romans. That's some pretty interesting facts.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that one can come to Jesus by facts, not faith alone? It isn't just faith? That is interesting.
 
#898
#898
fl0at said:
That a man named Jesus lived, rebelled and was crucified existed is inconsequential. The issue many have is whether that man was the son of a god that may or may not exist.

Some may not believe the man ever existed. Most all non-believers will agree that the man, if he did exist, was merely a man, and that stories of him have been greatly exaggerated.

Like this dude I knew from Nantucket.
Click to expand...

They were so exaggerated, that people were killed merely for believing in him. That doesn't sound exaggerated to me, that sounds like someone trying to prevent information from spreading about what truly happened with him.
 
#900
#900
g8terh8ter_eric said:
They were so exaggerated, that people were killed merely for believing in him. That doesn't sound exaggerated to me, that sounds like someone trying to prevent information from spreading about what truly happened with him.
Click to expand...

The Salem Witch trials are a great example of why people can be killed for simple exaggeration. Unless you believe that maybe they occurred because people just didn't like Harry Potter novels being read in school.

I don't find validity in your defense, given other examples of similarity, all of which can't be true, if yours is as well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top