james blunt
Well-Known Member
Our devised measurement and coordinate system that was devised by Minowski and Einstein in reality . It is clever ....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can religion reject this science ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- science
Our devised measurement and coordinate system that was devised by Minowski and Einstein in reality . It is clever ....
I responded directly to your post. But of course you expect me to fall over and worship your unsubstantiated ramblings over that of nasa on a subject such as space?
Not only did you cherry pick one sentence, you had to reword that to massage your ego.
And you wonder at the face palm?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I don't ask anyone to worship my ramblings ! I ask you to consider yourselves the objective facts and correct semantics that I am and have providing .
I also ask you to discuss my notions in an objective manner and question the notions involved .
Please start here :
1) Space cannot be created or destroyed
Do you not think that is self evidently true ?
Is there any evidence to the contrary ?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
This is just too silly. OK - go and devise a coordinate system that only needs two independent distances (or angles) to define a point in space. I'll not hold my breath.
Minkowski space is a combination of three dimensional Euclidean space and time - flat space-time. I thought you didn't like space-time?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Space time is an overlay of absolute space ! I never said I don't like space-time, you just don't quite have the correct semantics .
Yes considered the facts which is why I, and everyone else knows you are wrong
Done the discussion bit too, you ignore facts thay ate inconvenient to you
Dont start over again hoping for a different answer, just prove nasa wrong and win, if you cant do that then there is no point
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
More word salad. I see you didn't attempt a coordinate system with less than three numbers. An alternative way to see that space objectively three dimensional is to take some straight rods and see how many you can assemble so that they are all at right-angles to each other.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
I've decided , some of you are insanely delusional and to deny the obvious is absurd . I'm really starting to think that most people have some sort of mental block imposed on them as they are not very rational with their thinking at all .
I also think some might be being intentionally obtuse though !
I also think some might be being intentionally obtuse though !
james blunt
Well-Known Member
There's no projection , denying the self evidently true is kinda absurd !
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Perhaps you should stop denying that space has physical properties, then. Did you go see how many straight rods you could place at right-angle to each other? If that isn't a physical property of space, what is it?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
You really have a problem with the correct semantics don't you ?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Space has no physical properties , what you are talking about is called physical properties but it is not physical properties . As a measure yes , as physicality no .
Postulate 7 says
7) Space has no physicality
You've got me arguing about something I have not said in my postulates . Do you deny 7?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So what are dimensionality and geometry properties of?
Back to the nonsense sentences...
A measure is, by definition, a measurement of something.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
The brain ! They are not properties of space they are our relative measurements of space .
Of course , we do and can measure space but that is still not a property of space . Well not how I see it , I see a property is something that belongs to something . I.e an electron is a property of an atom .
Semantics can confuse us all , that is why sometimes people fail to understand each other . However my postulates are really simple .
Are you ready to discuss some science yet ?
How about spatial points are fixed and immovable ! Can you in anyway disagree with that ?
I'm not talking about the fields that occupy space that curve etc relative to space .
Fact is not necessarily self evident but it is fact
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It is definitely self evident about space unless you can show evidence to the contrary of the postulates . In example have you known , ever observed any space to have aged or decayed ?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Don't be ridiculous. It is objectively true that you can only arrange three straight rods at right-angles to each other in space. That is not something that is in your mind - it's a property of space.
No it isn't - an electron is a part or component of an atom. A property is characteristic of things, like electric charge, energy, or spin.
You more than most, it would seem.
And wrong.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It's wrong that my postulates are really simple ? Huh ? They are very simple , which one don't you understand ?
Which one are you in denial about ?
Which one can you show evidence to the contrary ? I'll even accept something logical !
14 pages now and still no provided evidence to the contrary of the postulates !
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I've just shown you why 7 is wrong - several times and you just keep telling me that objective facts about space are all in the mind. Talk about being in denial...