universe

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > universe > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

16-03-2021 18:58
keepit ★★★★★ (3074)	itn, It's an answer, just not the one you want to hear. I understand that it is just a fundamental thing, no details included. There are different rules of physics i'm sure.
16-03-2021 18:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	keepit wrote: I guess you could say that i BELIEVE there are more universes than this one. BTW, most cosmologists, astronomers, etc believe there are other universes. It kind of goes along the inflationary big bang and quantum mechanics. Well, you certainly BELIEVE in the church of the Big Bang. Quantum mechanics is not a universe nor does it describe a universe. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2021 19:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	GasGuzzler wrote: I have refrained thus far from commenting on this subject, but here's my 2 cents... I haven't the brainpower of a gfm, an IBdaMann, an Into the Night, or even a Harvey.. What I do BELIEVE is that no human has the capacity to fully comprehend this subject. All we can understand is boundaries. Everything we know and experience has boundaries....a beginning and an end, a life and death, a time period, or a distance. All things on Earth have boundaries. Your two cents is solid. Well put. All we know is finite. No theory of science is concerned with anything infinite. It is not falsifiable. GasGuzzler wrote: What we cannot comprehend is something that has always been, that goes on forever. Even if there is nothing...the void of space is still there, has always been there, and must always be there. We sorta can, but only in the philisophical sense. Even that is relating infinity to things that are finite. GasGuzzler wrote: I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars under an open range South Dakota sky. A great place to see them! I grew up in the high desert...an even better view. GasGuzzler wrote: It was amazing. I was trying to imagine deep space and forever. The moment I realized my brain would never comprehend this was the same moment I realized I was the smartest chump sitting on a log anywhere. Quite possibly around that campfire at least! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2021 19:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It is exactly that. keepit wrote: It's just not something you're familiar with. Gibberbabble. keepit wrote: It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. You don't get to speak for everyone. There is no such thing as 'standard thinking'. You only get to speak for you. keepit wrote: I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. You don't need a telescope or a collider to think. All you need is a brain and the willingness to use it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2021 19:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	keepit wrote: Gas, It's not a socialist plot to take over your mind. ????? No one even mentioned it. WTF are you talking about now??? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

16-03-2021 19:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	keepit wrote: itn, It's an answer, just not the one you want to hear. I understand that it is just a fundamental thing, no details included. There are different rules of physics i'm sure. Gibberbabble. Try again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 16-03-2021 19:14
16-03-2021 19:45
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	keepit wrote: I guess you could say that i BELIEVE there are more universes than this one. BTW, most cosmologists, astronomers, etc believe there are other universes. It kind of goes along the inflationary big bang and quantum mechanics. It actually doesn't. The universe we live can't be explained. One basic principle of science is that matter cannot be created so it does not exist. And if God exists, who created God? Just ways for people to go insane. You know, trying to explain what can never be explained. Yet if one universe can exist with no reason for it to be, what would prevent other universes, etc. from existing? It's strange that some people need to find a "cause" to "validate" their existence when they might as well enjoy it.
16-03-2021 20:25
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. Yes, it is.
16-03-2021 21:10
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. Yes, it is. You are correct gfm. Many scientists posit that there are multiple universes. How astute of you to be aware of this and to agree with keepit.
16-03-2021 22:41
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Does it make any sort of difference at all? It's all faith-based, and everyone has the right to worship as they please. Each religion is just as valid as the others. What you choose to believe, really isn't going to change much of anything, in this universe, this world, or you life. We scarcely have the tools to explore this universe we live in. Computer models, are no different than crystal balls, goat entrails, ice core samples, in their power to predict past, present and future events. There will always be things that we can never really know.
16-03-2021 23:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	HarveyH55 wrote: Does it make any sort of difference at all? It's all faith-based, and everyone has the right to worship as they please. Each religion is just as valid as the others. What you choose to believe, really isn't going to change much of anything, in this universe, this world, or you life. We scarcely have the tools to explore this universe we live in. Computer models, are no different than crystal balls, goat entrails, ice core samples, in their power to predict past, present and future events. There will always be things that we can never really know. It does matter Harvey. How existence is considered does matter. Scientists cannot explain the jump from RNA to DNA. There's just no reason for it. But the difference is in the life that each allows for. Amoebas are RNA based. To go to a higher life form that allows for diversification, then you need DNA. That is pretty basic. As to the God question, that is up to the individual. As ITN states so often, "IS". And he is right in his sentiments, our reality "IS". What allows for form and purpose? Or is everything some accident that isn't possible? Yet as Einstein said so famously, he wanted to know God's thoughts. What are the rules of our existence? That is what he wanted to understand. At the same time, no one can explain why anything has a thought. Science just doesn't allow for that, or does it?
16-03-2021 23:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	HarveyH55 wrote: Does it make any sort of difference at all? That's the whole point, i.e. it only makes a difference when it is a religion. Religions, by their nature, become the most important. All warmizombies bad-mouth science and call it a flat-earther religion because it goes against their religion which they call thettled thienth. Many warmizombies prefer to hurl the insult "Luddite" instead of "denier." Each religion tends to form a "Creation" account, or "beginning" if you will. This too becomes "the most important" into which believers invest much emotional equity. Warmizombies tend to convert the Big Bang theory into a religious dogma ... which means they get it wrong yet argue irrationally till their dying day. Likewise with Darwin's theory of Evolution. I happen to be a huge fan of the Big Bang theory and of Darwin's theory, but because it is speculation of the past without any bearing on events today, I have absolutely zero invested in whether either is correct. This means that I do not deny any competing theories either because any one of them might be correct as well. My problem in this area is that religion has left me with nobody to rationally discuss either the Big Bang or Darwinism. I'm hosed. ... but your point is well taken. It just doesn't matter at all except to the extent that one has emotional equity invested in his belief. HarveyH55 wrote: Computer models, are no different than crystal balls, There is one glaring difference between crystal balls and computer programs (models). The computer program can only spit out the message it was programmed to produce. The "message" of the program cannot change without it being reprogrammed. A crystal ball, on the other hand, requires no reprogramming, adjusting, modification or altering for the palm reader to change its message on the fly. Attached image:
16-03-2021 23:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Does it make any sort of difference at all? That's the whole point, i.e. it only makes a difference when it is a religion. Religions, by their nature, become the most important. All warmizombies bad-mouth science and call it a flat-earther religion because it goes against their religion which they call thettled thienth. Many warmizombies prefer to hurl the insult "Luddite" instead of "denier." Each religion tends to form a "Creation" account, or "beginning" if you will. This too becomes "the most important" into which believers invest much emotional equity. Warmizombies tend to convert the Big Bang theory into a religious dogma ... which means they get it wrong yet argue irrationally till their dying day. Likewise with Darwin's theory of Evolution. I happen to be a huge fan of the Big Bang theory and of Darwin's theory, but because it is speculation of the past without any bearing on events today, I have absolutely zero invested in whether either is correct. This means that I do not deny any competing theories either because any one of them might be correct as well. My problem in this area is that religion has left me with nobody to rationally discuss either the Big Bang or Darwinism. I'm hosed. ... but your point is well taken. It just doesn't matter at all except to the extent that one has emotional equity invested in his belief. HarveyH55 wrote: Computer models, are no different than crystal balls, There is one glaring difference between crystal balls and computer programs (models). The computer program can only spit out the message it was programmed to produce. The "message" of the program cannot change without it being reprogrammed. A crystal ball, on the other hand, requires no reprogramming, adjusting, modification or altering for the palm reader to change its message on the fly. Is this denial that without "laws" then there is no science which allows for existence? Myself, I believe that the laws which scientists have found to be true such as gravity or the speed of light, magnetism, etc, is all by pure chance. Existence simply cannot be defined by any law of "nature". There really is no Ohm's Law just as the is no Stefan-Boltzmann constant. That would show/demonstrate that existence is based on something more than "it exists". But what would allow for a determined set of principles that allows for existence? p.s., in case you have missed it, why keepit asked the question in the first place. I know what I am responding to, et Tu? Edited on 17-03-2021 00:02
17-03-2021 00:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	James___ wrote: It does matter Harvey. No, it does not. James___ wrote: How existence is considered does matter. The fact that you had to write that in the passive voice should have been your first clue that it is absurdly mistaken. Tell me whose opinion specifically, i.e. give me a name, matters how existence is considered. That's right, it was a stupid thing to try to sneak in there. James___ wrote: Scientists cannot explain the jump from RNA to DNA. That fact that you had to write that as a class, i.e. "scientists" should have been your first clue that it is absurdly mistaken. Try stating unequivocally that no human has ever developed a theory to explain that transition. That's right, it was a stupid thing to try to sneak in there. ... man, I am beating up on you a bit harshly. Let me tone it down a bit. James___ wrote: But the difference is in the life that each allows for. Aw crap! You just had to pull your "allows for" boolsch't, didn't you? You know that it is completely meaningless. Why do you do it? Everything in the universe specifically "allows for" everything else in the universe that it doesn't specifically prevent. Peanut butter allows for life to grow on planet earth. The Hubble telescope allows for the sun to keep shining. IBDaMann allows for distant galaxies to adhere to Newton's laws of motion (I bet you didn't realize that I was that influential, did you?) James___ wrote: Amoebas are RNA based. It's peanut butter that allows for it. Guaranteed. James___ wrote: To go to a higher life form that allows for diversification, then you need DNA. Life forms are not gauged by elevation. There aren't any life forms that are "higher" than others. Did you mean "more complex"? Did you mean "physically taller"? Did you mean "more intelligent"? Did you mean "less like peanut butter"? James___ wrote: As to the God question, that is up to the individual. Actually, I think the operating answer is up to each individual. The question, however, remains the same. James___ wrote:What allows for form and purpose? ... still peanut butter. James___ wrote: Or is everything some accident that isn't possible? Yeah, I'm going to go with the impossible being a certainty. James___ wrote: At the same time, no one can explain why anything has a thought. I can. Do I win a prize? James___ wrote:Science just doesn't allow for that, or does it? It's peanut butter that allows for that. . Attached image: Edited on 17-03-2021 00:37
17-03-2021 00:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	James___ wrote: Is this denial that without "laws" then there is no science which allows for existence? If there are no laws of nature, then there can be no science that predicts nature per the laws of nature. Of course there will always be peanut butter that allows for the existence of laws of nature. James___ wrote: Myself, I believe that the laws which scientists have found to be true such as gravity or the speed of light, magnetism, etc, is all by pure chance. No scientists have found any laws to be TRUE. Science doesn't confirm anything. How can a law of nature also be "pure chance"? Peanut butter alllows for you to explain. James___ wrote: Existence simply cannot be defined by any law of "nature". Because state of existence is defined in terms of state of existence. James___ wrote: But what would allow for a determined set of principles that allows for existence? The 40 oz. jar of Skippy specifically allows for that. . Attached image:

17-03-2021 00:49
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: It does matter Harvey. No, it does not. James___ wrote: How existence is considered does matter. The fact that you had to write that in the passive voice should have been your first clue that it is absurdly mistaken. Tell me whose opinion specifically, i.e. give me a name, matters how existence is considered. That's right, it was a stupid thing to try to sneak in there. James___ wrote: Scientists cannot explain the jump from RNA to DNA. That fact that you had to write that as a class, i.e. "scientists" should have been your first clue that it is absurdly mistaken. Try stating unequivocally that no human has ever developed a theory to explain that transition. That's right, it was a stupid thing to try to sneak in there. ... man, I am beating up on you a bit harshly. Let me tone it down a bit. James___ wrote: But the difference is in the life that each allows for. Aw crap! You just had to pull your "allows for" boolsch't, didn't you? You know that it is completely meaningless. Why do you do it? Everything in the universe specifically "allows for" everything else in the universe that it doesn't specifically prevent. Peanut butter allows for life to grow on planet earth. The Hubble telescope allows for the sun to keep shining. IBDaMann allows for distant galaxies to adhere to Newton's laws of motion (I bet you didn't realize that I was that influential, did you?) James___ wrote: Amoebas are RNA based. It's peanut butter that allows for it. Guaranteed. James___ wrote: To go to a higher life form that allows for diversification, then you need DNA. Life forms are not gauged by elevation. There aren't any life forms that are "higher" than others. Did you mean "more complex"? Did you mean "physically taller"? Did you mean "more intelligent"? Did you mean "less like peanut butter"? James___ wrote: As to the God question, that is up to the individual. Actually, I think the operating answer is up to each individual. The question, however, remains the same. James___ wrote:What allows for form and purpose? ... still peanut butter. James___ wrote: Or is everything some accident that isn't possible? Yeah, I'm going to go with the impossible being a certainty. James___ wrote: At the same time, no one can explain why anything has a thought. I can. Do I win a prize? James___ wrote:Science just doesn't allow for that, or does it? It's peanut butter that allows for that. . Did you say borscht? Everyone knows that's a Russian soup made with cabbage. Why does that matter? I think it was President Roosevelt who promised a chicken in every pot as a memento to prosperity. And yet you're on about cabbage stew for some reason? It wasn't Stalin who lighted Russia but it was, from my understanding the Light of Lenin. Basically Lenin allowed for a single light bulb in people's homes. Again, how do you guys not know this? And at this time, Russia was not east of the Ural Mountains. That took a Frenchman and a Russian to found Yekaterinburg. That city was founded to avoid the taxes that Tsars imposed on metallurgy. Tsars can also be spelled as Czars. But how do you guys not know this?
17-03-2021 00:56
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	p.s., if you ever visit Yekaterinburg in winter, they have an ice park near the hotel in the city center. I enjoyed my vacation as they were polite people. They understood that I was an American and did welcome me. For people who like to visit foreign countries, I would recommend visiting Yekaterinburg. And in the link, you'll see the rest of Yekaterinburg. https://earth.google.com/web/search/Yekaterinburg,+Russia/@56.83863896,60.60715646,247.48666504a,468.30951395d,35y,-0.00000122h,0.09101014t,0r/data=CoABGlYSUAolMHg0M2MxNjVlYWEwNjJkYjRiOjB4ZDUwMjQzZDdmNzU2N2YyMBnnY4it6mtMQCFQx76_nFJOQCoVWWVrYXRlcmluYnVyZywgUnVzc2lhGAEgASImCiQJFNMBsRvkQ0ARRsoXpVTKQ0AZWYGTS7sLVcAhoEpfCrQaVcA p.s., the internet doesn't list the hotel. When I visited, it was the Big Hotel. It's simply different in Russian. Болшоий Улице means basically Grand Street. Болшоий Гостиница is what it was called. Guestineetsa vs. hotel, how obvious. Bolshoi like the ballet company simply means grand or great. You guys are American so am sure that you know this. To give you guys a clue, Russia was founded by the Kiev Rys. And Roos is not pronounced like Roos but a deeper Rüs. And the differences in cultures can be observed in language. With borscht, might actually be Ukranian but could be the same dish in Russia. And no, I won't explain to you guys ü, I'm simply not your mother. This is funny because I can say that I am drover. Are you game? Kiev is the capital of Ukraine. Constantinople became became Istanbul, Turkey. The Vikings initiated trade between the 2 people. And when you ask how Vikings came to posses crucible steel, it is because it was made in Constantinople. Why your sword was literally broken. It is a "cool" smelting process because the fire is banked like when you cook meat. Apparently it wasn't done with metal outside of Turkey. Edited on 17-03-2021 01:56
17-03-2021 01:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	James___ wrote: p.s., if you ever visit Yekaterinburg in winter, they have an ice park near the hotel in the city center. I enjoyed my vacation as they were polite people. They understood that I was an American and did welcome me. For people who like to visit foreign countries, I would recommend visiting Yekaterinburg. And in the link, you'll see the rest of Yekaterinburg. https://earth.google.com/web/search/Yekaterinburg,+Russia/@56.83863896,60.60715646,247.48666504a,468.30951395d,35y,-0.00000122h,0.09101014t,0r/data=CoABGlYSUAolMHg0M2MxNjVlYWEwNjJkYjRiOjB4ZDUwMjQzZDdmNzU2N2YyMBnnY4it6mtMQCFQx76_nFJOQCoVWWVrYXRlcmluYnVyZywgUnVzc2lhGAEgASImCiQJFNMBsRvkQ0ARRsoXpVTKQ0AZWYGTS7sLVcAhoEpfCrQaVcA p.s., the internet doesn't list the hotel. When I visited, it was the Big Hotel. It's simply different in Russian. Болшоий Улице means basically Grand Street. Болшоий Гостиница is what it was called. Guestineetsa vs. hotel, how obvious. Bolshoi like the ballet company simply means grand or great. You guys are American so am sure that you know this. To give you guys a clue, Russia was founded by the Kiev Rys. And Roos is not pronounced like Roos but a deeper Rüs. And the differences in cultures can be observed in language. With borscht, might actually be Ukranian but could be the same dish in Russia. And no, I won't explain to you guys ü, I'm simply not your mother. This is funny because I can say that I am drover. Are you game? Kiev is the capital of Ukraine. Constantinople became became Istanbul, Turkey. The Vikings initiated trade between the 2 people. And when you ask how Vikings came to posses crucible steel, it is because it was made in Constantinople. Why your sword was literally broken. It is a "cool" smelting process because the fire is banked like when you cook meat. Apparently it wasn't done with metal outside of Turkey. Just watch the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G779UlpGQ3U Edited on 17-03-2021 02:01
17-03-2021 02:49
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	James___ wrote:Just watch the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_h1C94ZpzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mHuAfrtDNg . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2021 03:01
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2935)	GasGuzzler wrote: Awe crap. I hope it wasn't the same night. IBdaMann wrote: Not unless you were that kid sitting next to me getting all confused by there being so much stuff in the nighttime sky being so unimaginably far away. I'm sure that wasn't you. I was in Colorado on a camping trip in 1989. I was certainly confused. Could be me.... Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 17-03-2021 03:03
17-03-2021 03:15
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Just watch the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_h1C94ZpzA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mHuAfrtDNg . The first video, Yes. With the 2nd one, I saved it. I've watched a lot of his shows on PBS. It is possible I've seen that video already. Please understand that some people dislike other cultures. Somehow when other people do things in a similar fashion, they are threatened by that. A common meme among people is that everyone needs to live and to have a life. And yet they need to be different. p.s., you ever check out how "HOT" she is? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4LIM9VYhB0 Edited on 17-03-2021 03:26
17-03-2021 04:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. Yes, it is. You are correct gfm. Many scientists posit that there are multiple universes. How astute of you to be aware of this and to agree with keepit. Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention to the conversation. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2021 05:11
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. Yes, it is. You are correct gfm. Many scientists posit that there are multiple universes. How astute of you to be aware of this and to agree with keepit. Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention to the conversation. I have been. Can you explain our reality? If I were to say the Great Spirit, I would be wrong. The Great Spirit only allows for what is. This is why you often say "Is". It is what is allowed if only our existence is allowed for. Yet if there is another "Is", this is not a belief that is allowed. I understand that but yet am not bound by it. Maybe we can accept the limitations of our reality?
17-03-2021 05:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	James___ wrote:Maybe we can accept the limitations of our reality? Don't we call those "the laws of nature" ... and in some remote cases, "science"? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-03-2021 05:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Maybe we can accept the limitations of our reality? Don't we call those "the laws of nature" ... and in some remote cases, "science"? . Unless you clarify your comments, just have no idea what you're talking about.
17-03-2021 06:43
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Does it make any sort of difference at all? That's the whole point, i.e. it only makes a difference when it is a religion. Religions, by their nature, become the most important. All warmizombies bad-mouth science and call it a flat-earther religion because it goes against their religion which they call thettled thienth. Many warmizombies prefer to hurl the insult "Luddite" instead of "denier." Each religion tends to form a "Creation" account, or "beginning" if you will. This too becomes "the most important" into which believers invest much emotional equity. Warmizombies tend to convert the Big Bang theory into a religious dogma ... which means they get it wrong yet argue irrationally till their dying day. Likewise with Darwin's theory of Evolution. I happen to be a huge fan of the Big Bang theory and of Darwin's theory, but because it is speculation of the past without any bearing on events today, I have absolutely zero invested in whether either is correct. This means that I do not deny any competing theories either because any one of them might be correct as well. My problem in this area is that religion has left me with nobody to rationally discuss either the Big Bang or Darwinism. I'm hosed. ... but your point is well taken. It just doesn't matter at all except to the extent that one has emotional equity invested in his belief. HarveyH55 wrote: Computer models, are no different than crystal balls, There is one glaring difference between crystal balls and computer programs (models). The computer program can only spit out the message it was programmed to produce. The "message" of the program cannot change without it being reprogrammed. A crystal ball, on the other hand, requires no reprogramming, adjusting, modification or altering for the palm reader to change its message on the fly. Climatologist, or gypsy, either one will gladly take your money, and tell you ambiguous crap, to keep you coming back for more. Makes no difference if they are reading from a computer screen, crystal ball, palms, cards, or goat entrails. Those are just to deflect you attention, part of the delusion/illusion.
17-03-2021 18:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: gfm7175 wrote: keepit wrote: gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. Yes, it is. You are correct gfm. Many scientists posit that there are multiple universes. How astute of you to be aware of this and to agree with keepit. Contextomy fallacy. Pay attention to the conversation. I have been. Can you explain our reality? If I were to say the Great Spirit, I would be wrong. The Great Spirit only allows for what is. This is why you often say "Is". It is what is allowed if only our existence is allowed for. Yet if there is another "Is", this is not a belief that is allowed. I understand that but yet am not bound by it. Maybe we can accept the limitations of our reality? RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-03-2021 18:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:Maybe we can accept the limitations of our reality? Don't we call those "the laws of nature" ... and in some remote cases, "science"? . Unless you clarify your comments, just have no idea what you're talking about. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-03-2021 16:50
Jacob114 ☆☆☆☆☆ (6)	Of course, there are. The observable universe contains two trillion galaxies, including ours. Each galaxy has its own stars and planets. So why can't other universes exist? I know that this theory is controversial, and not all scientists believe in it, but I suppose it's possible.
18-03-2021 17:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	Jacob114 wrote: Of course, there are. Oh, absolutely! Let me guess ... you're omniscient too? Jacob114 wrote: The observable universe contains two trillion galaxies, including ours. Yes, I counted them as well. I'm glad you specified "including ours" because I was about to correct you by pointing out there are only 1,999, 999,999 other galaxies. Jacob114 wrote: Each galaxy has its own stars and planets. ... each conforming to the Galaxy Owners Association rules and guidelines. Jacob114 wrote:So why can't other universes exist? Wait, wait, wait ... your position is that "of course" other universes exist but here you are asking why other universes cannot exist. The answer to that is "of course" there is no reason that other universes cannot exist because other universes "of course" exist ... and that reason of yours is what? Is it because whenever a universe reaches its two trillion galaxy limit that another universe is automatically formed? Jacob114 wrote:I know that this theory is controversial, and not all scientists believe in it ... Does it matter whether any scientists believe it? If so, what is the number of scientists required to believe it? When law enforcement officers are investigating a murder, what percentage of the world's scientists do they need in order to convict a suspect? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

18-03-2021 18:54
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	IBdaMann wrote: Jacob114 wrote: Of course, there are. Oh, absolutely! Let me guess ... you're omniscient too? Jacob114 wrote: The observable universe contains two trillion galaxies, including ours. Yes, I counted them as well. I'm glad you specified "including ours" because I was about to correct you by pointing out there are only 1,999, 999,999 other galaxies. Jacob114 wrote: Each galaxy has its own stars and planets. ... each conforming to the Galaxy Owners Association rules and guidelines. Jacob114 wrote:So why can't other universes exist? Wait, wait, wait ... your position is that "of course" other universes exist but here you are asking why other universes cannot exist. The answer to that is "of course" there is no reason that other universes cannot exist because other universes "of course" exist ... and that reason of yours is what? Is it because whenever a universe reaches its two trillion galaxy limit that another universe is automatically formed? Jacob114 wrote:I know that this theory is controversial, and not all scientists believe in it ... Does it matter whether any scientists believe it? If so, what is the number of scientists required to believe it? When law enforcement officers are investigating a murder, what percentage of the world's scientists do they need in order to convict a suspect? . That's what the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is for...
23-03-2021 21:56
S@ve0ur3arth ☆☆☆☆☆ (29)	keepit wrote: Who here believes there's a "universe" other than the visible "universe"? To be honest, I believe that the universe is infinite. However, I also believe there are different dimensions where you could enter into different universes.
24-03-2021 06:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	S@ve0ur3arth wrote: keepit wrote: Who here believes there's a "universe" other than the visible "universe"? To be honest, I believe that the universe is infinite. However, I also believe there are different dimensions where you could enter into different universes. If so, the Universe is not universal. There is only one observed Universe. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-03-2021 06:05
24-03-2021 16:33
keepit ★★★★★ (3074)	itn, Always with the semantics. And quite often with the denial of reality (DOR). Edited on 24-03-2021 17:08
24-03-2021 18:07
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	keepit wrote: itn, Always with the semantics. And quite often with the denial of reality (DOR). keepit, Always with the whining and blaming others for your own shortcomings. And quite often with the denial of logic (DOL).
24-03-2021 22:47
keepit ★★★★★ (3074)	itn, I may have misinterpreted your post. O mig osh kosh.
25-03-2021 04:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	keepit wrote: itn, Always with the semantics.And quite often with the denial of reality. keepit, always with the gibberish. And schitty grammar, spelling; and !punctuation. And quite often demonstrating he can't grasp the easy stuff. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2021 04:19
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458)	keepit wrote: itn, I may have misinterpreted your post. O mig osh kosh. You would have us believe that you can otherwise read? In what way might you have you misinterpreted Into the Night's post? Shouldn't you be out advocating death to air travelers? Hey keepit, if I type up a post to correct your egregious misinformation, does it increase the number of posts? What do you have if there are no semantics in a post? It's good to know that in this fast-paced world that is always changing, you remain steadfastly dim in your wit. Have an awesome day and eat some baloney. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-03-2021 05:03
keepit ★★★★★ (3074)	Don't get so riled up ibd. Besides, i wasn't even talking to you.
25-03-2021 05:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21645)	keepit wrote: itn, It's an answer, just not the one you want to hear. I understand that it is just a fundamental thing, no details included. There are different rules of physics i'm sure. How are you sure? You say the Universe is not universal. You say there is more than one Universe, even though only one has ever been observed. You've been watching too much science fiction. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate universe:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Eternal Law Rule Of The Universe Is Desire & Existence	0	12-07-2021 14:22