Evolution Sucks!

POSTED BY: dougp59
UPDATED: Monday, July 27, 2026 16:36
VIEWED: 32323
PAGE 14 of 20

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Christhecynic:
I've been told there is no such thing as absolute speed (save that of light in a vacuum.) If something is not accelerating it is at rest from its frame of reference and moving from another, but neither is more correct.

True, sort of, I'll get back to it.

Quote:
However I have also been told that as something accelerates towards the speed of light it gains mass.

This is true. It is given by M/sqrt(1 - v²/c²), or the resultant mass is equal to the rest mass divided by the squareroot of one minus the velocity squared times the speed of light in a vacuum squared.
If you had an object of 1kg traveling at a speed of 0.95c the relatevistic mass would be:
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - (0.95*c)²/(1*c)²)
(Solving for c)
M = 1 / sqrt(1 - 0.95²)
M = 1 / sqrt(0.0975)
M = 1 / 0.3122...
M = ~3.2kg

Quote:
If that is true couldn't one simply measure the mass of, say, a hydrogen proton, in a non accelerating object and from that determine whether it is moving faster or slower than another non-accelerating object that has had a similar measurement? (By seeing which has more mass, of course.)

No. Within it's own reference frame the hydrogen particle will have gained no mass, it gains mass in respect to the outside universe. In order to measure an objects mass it *must* be at rest within your reference frame, ergo you'll never see a discrepency between two hydrogen particles, as you can only measure rest mass.

Quote:
If that is true wouldn't that mean there is such a thing as absolute speed?

Yes and no. As a particle with finite rest mass reaches c it's energy/mass coefficient reaches infinity. Thus a photon (beam of light) can reach c because it has a rest mass of zero. An object with a finite rest mass (above 0) would reach the point of infinte energy/mass coefficient at a lower speed, thus not being able to reach c.

Now even under relativity it is theoretically possible to exceed c, but you need a negative rest mass. That is, for instance, you need a bag of sugar that weighs -1kg. One type of particle that has been theorised to have a negative rest mass is a tachyon (Greek for swift) though there's no direct evidence of their existence (I heard something awhile back about a type of radiation being encountered in the upper atmosphere which is consistent with Tachyons) they would theoretically not be capable of speeds slower than c.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

VERASAMUELS

Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:52 PM

>the simple fact that one plus one does equal two<

Not in non-Eclidean geometry .

But to enter the wider debate;

What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Vera

Devout Keeper of Jayne's Lunchbox

CHRISTHECYNIC

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by VeraSamuels:
What if the almost unthinkably vast universe and everything in it is 'God'?

Just a thought.

Various religions and books (Stranger in a Strange Land for example) are based on that very thought.

CITIZEN

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:09 PM

Quote:
Not in non-Eclidean geometry

Just thinking. Assuming of course we're not dealing with five-dimensional objects in a basic Euclidean geometric universe and given the essential premise that all geo-mathematics is based on the hideously limiting notion that one plus one equals two, and not as Astemeyer correctly postulates that one and two are in fact the same thing observed from different precepts, the theoretical shape described by Siddus must therefore be a poly-dri-doc-deca-wee-hedron-a-hexa-sexa-hedro-adicon-a-di-bi-
dolly-he-deca-dodron.
Everything else is popycock. Isn't that so?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.

SPINLAND

Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:52 PM

Thanks for again being the voice of reason, Christhecynic. I fear I'm unable to respond to the troll who started this thread without my own baggage coming through. I shall work harder to ignore his posts and reserve any comments I have for responding to the rest of you as they occur to me.

Cheers!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"That's what governments are for, [to] get in a man's way." -- Malcolm Reynolds

CHRISTHECYNIC

Friday, January 13, 2006 12:03 AM

I always thought that 1 + 1 = 2 because the defintion of two was "1 + 1" then you merely have to assume or prove that 1 + 1 = 1 + 1 which intitively seems to be the defintion of =.

I mean one is the only number that exists in reality anyway, take one person, add another person, you now have one group, add another person and you have ... one group.

But it would be nice to distinguish these different forms of one, so we give them names the first group, one person and one person, written 1 + 1 people, is called a (which means one) group of two, or 2 people.

All of this is too many words, so we just make our symbols, and all math I have thus far been introduced to stems from addition and the idea of identities. So I always thought 2 was defined as 1 + 1.

Of course "always" is a lie, I was told in high school that because some group was more or less masochistic they took only two axioms where sane people took three. That forced them to rigorously prove various things, 1 + 1 = 2 being one of those things.

I was also told that the person who proved it burned out, and after writing out the long paper proving it he produced little else of the caliber he consistantly had before.

I should point out that many of the things I was told were not true, these may be among them.

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:09 AM

Doug,

True, some ID is flying spaghetti monster. For another, I just said that big bang was ID. I mean it too. But then all of this is creationism, just not christian creationism.

But Intelligent Design has a more insidious role to play. It is part of the neocon's plan to throw the '08 election to Hillary, who is really one of their own. All that needs to happen is for the republian nominee to get up and say "I believe in intelligent design and will make its teaching federal law in place of evolution" and I guarantee you that the repulicans will lose.

Doug,

You're also not for real. Someone put you up to this. I've known christians, many of them, fundamentalists, and you in no way resemble them. I think you're probably doing it as a prank, you certainly don't really believe everything you post. You probably don't believe anything you post.

Quote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hitler a Christian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LOLOLOLOLOLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh no, if you're not a christian maybe you're defending nazis here. I think that Hilter was a Christian is a well established fact, just like that he had the backing of the Roman Catholic Church, though he was, if I recall correctly, a Lutheran. I think as a rhetorical device, your response failed miserably. A better response would have been "He was also a vegetarian, what of it?"

Quote:
That neither proves nor supports your position. It a best makes you dislike the adversarial nature of modern theoretical physics, which is surprising given your support of the free market system.

Citizen, please desist this really annoying rhetorical style of trying to misrepresent other people's position. Clearly mine is the competitive theory, and is a collection of a lot of other people's works who are not dogmatic in approach, and what you posted is straight line non-competitive dogma. Saying that I don't like competing ideas because I fail to bow to the uncompromising wrote theories which have more basis in old time religion than science is, well, it's beyond absurd. I think you just intentionally just tries to invert my position as a form of argument and it's the second time in a row and I'm rather annoyed by it. I'm beginning to suspect it's not a mistake, but a form of blatant dishonesty.

Quote:
It's nothing of the sort. It has no religious element. The fact that some people have taken it up as proof god exists or whatever is completely coincidental.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. The theory of creationism over eons rather than seven days was very similar to big bang, and preceded big bang. Actually, it is big bang. This is the way I first heard it in college "There was this theory, and it didn't have the evidence it needed, then we found that evidence in background radiation." Yeah, there was this theory called yay jesus, and then we pinned something to it. Back ground radiation is not about the big bang, it's dead light from beyond the edge. At least so says my competing theory.

Quote:

No it isn't. There's plenty of evidence, and it fits everything we know about physics at the moment.

That a near infinite particle can spontaneously come into being? This shows no understanding of how particles come into being. It's not just statisically improbable on a level that it would happen in 16 billion years, it's actually impossible.

Quote:
If you want to prove me wrong, show me some.

I think I just gave you half a dozen things.

Quote:
Just so you know there's nothing in QM that prohibits the big bang. In fact particles have been observed to 'appear' and 'disappear' (that is be created and be destroyed) within QM experiments.

Of course, and we know how and why this happens, because particles are the result of the interaction of energy strands. Even if the statisically unlike event that all strands everywhere crossed at the same point in space in time, which is unlikely on the order of one in infinity, the laws of quantum mechanics would still prevent the event from cr

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:19 AM

Chris,

but why go there? The thing is, I don't know the answers, I'm just constantly stabbing in the direction, comparing the possibilities. To take an absurd notion to be true because someone wants it to be true is to lose all sense of perspective and to blind you from ever knowing the truth.

I'm not bent on no God, just as I'm not bent on no big bang, but neither idea seems to have strong enough supporting it to make it even probable, let alone definite. Furthermore, closer examination may lead one to think the initial idea was suspect, so why bother. More effort can be spend on unknowns far more plausible and proveable.

I'm not arguing an infinite sequence, only that the objective analysis seems to indicate to me that the universe is far older and larger than the theory allows, and that the theory doesn't like that because that means that there are an awful lot of unknowns.

My theory has a lot of stuff it can never explain, like i must deal with the 'whatever's outside' of this black hole universe. Well, I'm pretty sure that what I have now is more concere than the big bang, I have no philosophical need for this 'outside' but my theory does seems to indicate one, and so I have to assume that it exists. I have no problem with it existing, only that I can't possibly tell what it is. I assume it to be universe like in nature, but maybe it's endless plasma goop, or the henderson's kitchen table, I don't really know.

TANSTAAFL28

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:30 AM

Evolution is scientific theory that happens to fit the available facts. Until another scientific theory comes along and replaces it, it's the best we have.

People who peddle ID are mistaking philosophy for science. Beliefs aren't facts. Beliefs are the wishful thinking that people comfort themselves with when they don't like the facts.

"You can't take the sky from me..."

DREAMTROVE

Friday, January 13, 2006 1:33 AM

Citizen,

Thanks for the back up on the nazi christian thing, I wish I had some resources to send you on debunking the big bang et al., I have to assemble some. The problem is that most of what is behind the big bang is theoretical mathematics, and most of what shoots it down is scientific observation, and I'm not just shooting my mouth off here. I think if you look into the flaws, your faith will be shaken. I'm not sure what point that has, unless you are interested in the truth. That said, I have to disagree with you:

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen:
Why not, I'm not sure he would be the *worst* christian whoever lived.

Yes, he was. I thought about this for a couple minutes first, and I thought of a lot of crusaders, the various leaders of the crusaders, and was it Richard the Lionheart who led the genocide crusade that depopulated Israel? Killed 10 million arabs and jews or something? Maybe it was another king. So, yeah, sure, possible, but if all Hitler had done was the holocaust, he might have been bested, but alas there was also the polish genocide, the serbian genocide, the gypsies, the russians, the lithuanians, not to mention a war with casualties of up to 60 million. He was undoubtedly the worst, in sheer numbers. I don't know if he actually ate children like Patassé was it? So sure, there's competition for the title, but I'm going to go with bodycount here.

Actually, I have to reconsider for a second. I just remembered king ferdinand of spain. 4 million europeans and untold numbers of indians, and the destruction of all that ancient knowledge, civilizations, etc. Hmm. Fuhrer still probably number one, but there's a top ten here somewhere.

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE