Origin of life elsewhere and close together
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Scientists present first bread-and-butter results_from_LHC_collisions
Next: Who is really the 'personality' that calls himself 'Inertial'??!!
From: bpuharic on 13 Jun 2010 19:54 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:38:59 -0700 (PDT), BURT <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >He said it on camera. I saw the video. I think it was Stephen Hawking >master of the Universe first episode. He said it publically. He said >if the science created the universe then we don't need God. That is >all there is to this argument. > >Mitch Raemsch uh oh. we have a pagano wannabee here. he has a little file he dumps onto the net when he wants to slam science of course, science creates nothing. so we know he's lying. but that wont stop him from continuing to lie about what hawkin said.
From: BURT on 13 Jun 2010 19:56 On Jun 13, 4:41�pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 6:30�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 2:44 am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > > of time. > > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > > come from? > > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? > > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > > happened? > > > Mitch Raemsch > > As the objects of our world revolve, a groove is worn. �Understanding > physics of our world requires understanding of this wearing.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Well you might understand a collection of mistakes called science. But I understand them to be wrong. "The problem is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann Once we see what is a mistake in our theory we must go about making the correction. Science is a short history of mistakes. I don't make the mistake I make the correction. That is all there is to it. Mitch Raemsch
From: bpuharic on 13 Jun 2010 19:56 On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:35:57 -0700 (PDT), "richardalanforrest(a)googlemail.com" <richardalanforrest(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > >Because Stephen Hawking is a human being as well as a scientist, and >free to express whatever views he wishes. > >Or do you think that people should not be allowed to express such >views? you're gonna pop his capillaries arguing like that. he's got it in his religious fanatic mind that hawking is a 'high priest'. it's the only way he can understand how science works
From: GogoJF on 13 Jun 2010 20:04 On Jun 13, 6:56�pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 13, 6:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 2:44 am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > > > come from? > > > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? > > > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > > > happened? > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > As the objects of our world revolve, a groove is worn. Understanding > > physics of our world requires understanding of this wearing.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Well you might understand a collection of mistakes called science. But > I understand them to be wrong. > > "The problem is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > Once we see what is a mistake in our theory we must go about making > the correction. Science is a short history of mistakes. > > I don't make the mistake I make the correction. > > That is all there is to it. > > Mitch Raemsch A dog chasing its own tail- a vicious circle- with every answer there are 100 questions created.
From: BURT on 13 Jun 2010 20:28
On Jun 13, 5:04�pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 6:56 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 13, 4:41 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 13, 6:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 13, 2:44 am, Burkhard <b.scha...(a)ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > > > On 13 June, 03:05, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 6:45 pm, Michael Young <youngms...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:50 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I am sorry but that won't work. You never offered an answer to where > > > > > > > > the order in the universe before man comes from? > > > > > > > > You just say that you did when you didn't. > > > > > > > > No I didn't. I said other people did, and they did. You already asked > > > > > > > this question, and this question was already answered. I know because > > > > > > > I read it, and you should know because you wrote it. I don't know if > > > > > > > it was in this thread but where it is doesn't really matter; what does > > > > > > > matter is that you're asking an answered question twice, which means > > > > > > > to me that you ignored all the answers given the first time. No matter > > > > > > > what anyone says, you're going to reject it if it's not in line with > > > > > > > you think. It's just driving a car off a cliff. > > > > > > > > So no, I'm not going to answer the question, not because I actually > > > > > > > lack an answer, but because it won't get us anywhere. > > > > > > > > > If you say it was the Big Bang itself then I ask you how can a lump of > > > > > > > > matter create anything? How does that lump do it? > > > > > > > > Phrasing a question about the Big Bang in the form of "how does a lump > > > > > > > of matter create stuff" shows, to me, that you think it's totally > > > > > > > stupid, and any explanation given will likely be dismissed by you as > > > > > > > stupid. I'm speculating here, so I could be wrong. But when you ask a > > > > > > > question in a manner that tries making the subject sound ridiculous, > > > > > > > it kills any motive for me to answer it because I feel like I'd be > > > > > > > throwing out an explanation to no avail, and it would just be a waste > > > > > > > of time. > > > > > > > > Essentially what I'm saying here is you're really just looking for a > > > > > > > fight. If you *really* cared about how the Big Bang works, you could > > > > > > > easily look it up, as it's an extremely common topic. But, you're > > > > > > > BURT, and you want to entertain yourself, or so I believe. > > > > > > > Just show where order comes from? > > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > It is a way of observing the world and understanding it that has > > > > > evolutionary advantages and is hence hard-wired in our brain. Order is > > > > > in the eye of the beholder.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Yes we observe order in the world. But where did the universe's order > > > > come from? > > > > So according to you the Big Bang is only in the eye of the beholder? > > > > What if you don't believe in the Big Bang? Does that mean it never > > > > happened? > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > As the objects of our world revolve, a groove is worn. Understanding > > > physics of our world requires understanding of this wearing.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Well you might understand a collection of mistakes called science. But > > I understand them to be wrong. > > > "The problem is to find the problem." Richard Feynmann > > > Once we see what is a mistake in our theory we must go about making > > the correction. Science is a short history of mistakes. > > > I don't make the mistake I make the correction. > > > That is all there is to it. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > A dog chasing its own tail- a vicious circle- with every answer there > are 100 questions created.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I am pointing out that black holes violate laws. Kip Thorne made an excuse so that people could go on believing in them when if you make the right correction black holes no longer exist. A theory of limited gravity/acceleration strength is the correction to infinite gravity at a singularity. Hawking says "GR predicts its own downfall by predicting singularity infinities." I am making the correction. Mitch Raemsch |