I think there's a big difference between scientific data and scripture though. How would we go about verifying the scripture, as we could if we had proper tools to verify the equation. What sort of tools would you need to verify a scripture?
frames of reference aren't mystical. I'm not sure, but maybe you should have went to a school of some sort.
A frame of reference is the standard way to say the position of the observer, You've obviously never even had a physical science course, one you didn't skip or get hight in, let alone a...
I never mentioned "an eternal duck" of any kind. You did. Your trolling, plain and simple.
I'm not the one that believes in god. You explain the "eternal duck"
Objectivity deals with the possible, subjectivity deals with the relative.
What I mean by this, is kind of what I've been saying about the stupid Duck.
To look at something objectively, you have to consider all available frames of reference. To look at it subjectively, you only need one frame...
I agree that reality is subjective, but I think only in comparison to what we percieve as "real", or "reality".
I think that what can be verified by one observer should be verfiable by all observers.
absolute means encompasses the idea as a whole in this context. Look the word up, now you just sound silly. Have you been to bed yet?
I have a blue duck.
John has a red one.
I rip the feathers and beak off the blue duck, and now he's pink, with no feathers and no bill. I set him on fire. Then...
However, I can see where the expectations of those tests could be percieved as faith. BUT, if the scientific process has been proven sucessful, should we not accept, rather than have faith, that the tests will give accurate results, or do you suggest that accepting something, even with proof, is...
Sure i have :D i took chemistry.
I actually enjoyed chemistry
Also, you can't make the mistake of confusing "faith" with "understanding" I can understand something, know how the tests work, view the data for myself, and come to a conclusion, without having to have faith in the fact the...
physicists do, not much we can do about it.
Absolute can also mean perfecly emodying the nature of a thing, or fundemental and true, unfallibe, unchangable and CONSTANT.
While absolute can also be used to describe things as whole, it also means that it does not change. Or in the case of...
No. But I have met a duck. So have most people. Most people, when they think of a duck, will think of the duck they personally met. That duck is not the idea of a duck. The idea of a duck, is what i have when someone says, Duck. I don't think of a cow, or at least what a cow looks like to me. I...
Dude, that's just a load of crap lol. You are philosophising the theory of relativity.
This is simply two ways of saying the same thing:
the speed of light is measured the same for all observers, not because the speed of light is absolute, but because it is the same no matter what your speed...
sure it is. I dont mean left to right. You can walk flat land for miles and miles, and never see but a certain distance behind you, no matter good your vision is or how barren it is. The higher on the mountain, the further you see, because you are further from the curvature of the surface.
Okay, so that one is a bit tougher. This might seem like a cop out, but it's not. I don't necessarily believe in the Big Bang. I'm "agnostic" about it, until unrefutable evidence surfaces. This is also why I don't buy into string theory, and the vibrations determining the charge of electrons and...
He must be referring back to his wikki...
maybe the mirriam webster this time?
I like how you tried to spin the word absolute, too. The reason the speed of light is considered "absolute" is because it is the same for all observers. That's all that matters, in any frame of reference. And...
Ive said the same thing the entire time. The IDEA of a duck is absolute. No matter who thinks of a duck, they think of a duck. You don't look at a duck and come to the conclusion that it is a cow, unless you came to that conlusion erronously
The problem is, you are confusing a duck with the laws...
I NEVER SAID that lenght of space OR time was absolute. I said they were relative to C, which is absolute. I said that we measure what is relative, in relation to what is absolute.