RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[ratiocinator]

So why can´t you make the logical conclusion and connection that atoms and molecules contains energy and that the human body also is build by atoms and molecules?

You seem to be desperate to disagree with something I haven't said. Atoms and molecules have energy, 'contains' energy if you want, but the point is that you can't have energy by itself. It is a property that things have.

On the atom and molecular level it is electromagnetic charged frequensies.

Word salad. Frequencies can't be charged. Because of quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality, you can have a particle that has an associated frequency and an associated charge, but it's not the frequency that is charged.

Energy is a different property again, although it may be associated with a frequency within an atom - it gets complicated even for a simple hydrogen, not least because you end up dealing with spherical harmonics. I have pages and pages of equations in my notes on the quantum mechanics of a hydrogen atom.

 

[Native]

Frequencies are not things and thus cannot be charged by whatever you think electromagnetic is

Where did I say frequencies are things?

Unfortunately, it appears that you have no knowledge of physics but have been reading or watching a lot of woo-woo pseudoscience that has no basis in reality. It is not a broader understanding, but a symptom of a desire for specialness in a world that seems too complex coupled with an ignorance of what the words being used even mean. It sounds sciencey so it must mean something!

Said by one who even cannot cite a sentence correct.

 

[Native]

You seem to be desperate to disagree with something I haven't said. Atoms and molecules have energy, 'contains' energy if you want, but the point is that you can't have energy by itself. It is a property that things have.

Are you debating with yourself now!? Where did i say "energy has energy in itself!"?

 

[ratiocinator]

Are you debating with yourself now!? Where did i say "energy has energy in itself!"?

You didn't. That's the point.

You joined a conversation at #176 which I was having with somebody else who thought we were made of energy and matter (two things that aren't even in the same category) and started going on about atoms and molecules carrying electromagnetic energy, which they (obviously) do and I'd never disagreed with.

You seem to have been doggedly arguing with your own misunderstanding of my position ever since...

 

[Audie]

Where did I say frequencies are things?

Said by one who even cannot cite a sentence correct.

"correctly"

 

[Native]

You didn't. That's the point.

What´s the point of discussing negations?

You joined a conversation at #176 which I was having with somebody else who thought we were made of energy and matter (two things that aren't even in the same category)

Yes and I did that because matter = atoms and molecules holds energy - and most of us are made of such energetic matters. You simply failed to make this logical connection in this case, and thats why i interferred.

 

[Native]

"correctly"

Would you like to make all your replies in a Danish language? If so, I would be very happy to to nitpick on your grammar and wordings.

 

[Pogo]

What´s the point of discussing negations?

Yes and I did that because matter = atoms and molecules holds energy - and most of us are made of such energetic matters. You simply failed to make this logical connection in this case, and thats why i interferred.

Ok, you are Danish and English is not your first language.
Your sentences in English imply something other than what you intend sometimes.
Yes we all understand that we use energy supplied by food to sustain life, not a question or relevant to your real assertion.
Your assertion seems to be that modern cosmology is based on some false assumptions.
What those assumptions are and why they are false and what would be correct in your view we do not as yet know.
Does this make sense to you?
Can we start over from this point.

 

[Pogo]

Would you like to make all your replies in a Danish language? If so, I would be very happy to to nitpick on your grammar and wordings.

The problem is your English grammar, it is leading you to say things you do not mean.
You could type in Danish and we could use Google translate, we are used to figuring out GTs strange grammar there.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes and I did that because matter = atoms and molecules holds energy - and most of us are made of such energetic matters. You simply failed to make this logical connection in this case, and thats why i interferred.

I didn't fail to make the connection, it was totally irrelevant to the discussion I was having about energy being a property, rather that 'stuff' that things can be made of.

 

[Native]

Your sentences in English imply something other than what you intend sometimes

Patronizing rubbish!

Your assertion seems to be that modern cosmology is based on some false assumptions.

And?

The problem is your English grammar, it is leading you to say things you do not mean.

Patronizing rubbish! It´s rather my critical approach and alternate comments on things which disturbs your conventional scientific education, perception, and understanding.

 

[Audie]

Would you like to make all your replies in a Danish language? If so, I would be very happy to to nitpick on your grammar and wordings.

Terrif. You use Danish I will use Chinese.

It that had been nit picking I'd have also mentioned
the sentence fragment wherein your other error was
embedded.

We merely twitted you for making mistakes while
criticizing anothers' error.

Try not being so touchy or making excuses.
I'm ESL too, but I don't make excuses.

 

[Native]

We merely twitted you for making mistakes while
criticizing anothers' error

The difference was/is that I criticized scientific matters and not personal ones as you seems to prioritize highest in a debate forum.

 

[icant]

icant said:
Hi Apple,

I don't remember saying that the BBT was an assumption,

I did say: "As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT. (Support=Evidence)

Then I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? Are the evidences that support the BBt assumptions?

Ok let me see what I can do with that.
# 1. There is evidence that the universe is expanding.
a. The Redshift of Galaxies as they are moving away from us indicates the universe is expanding.

1a. That seems to support that the expansion began in one place.

# 2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which is supposed been a snapshot of the early universe when it was only 380,000 years old. This is supposed to tell us it was a very bright place.

When the universe began to exist as we see it today with all that light that had been shinning for past eternity until that time began to move and spread out in all directions I would assume it was a light show like no other light show.

Isaiah:40:21 Asks a question

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Isaiah 40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

Everybody likes to make fun of what Isaiah says, because stretching out of the universe does not sit well with their understanding of and expanding universe.

Isaiah was a tent dweller, so he used his language to explain what he meant by describing how a tent is set up. I was in the Military and went on bib Wack and I was glad my tent had a floor in it. Setting it up required to anchor the corners first. Then stretch out the walls and roof. So, he is talking about stretching it in all directions which, I think is what the universe is supposed to be doing.

So, the BBT tells me my Bible is correct and that was written 2400 years before the BB came along.

Then I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? Are the evidences that support the BBt assumptions?

Does the BBT claim to know the source or that the energy needs a source?

I say that the BBT is based on a host of assumptions. As anything presented so far has been in complete agreement with the Biblical presentation of creation. l am not a YEC but an old earth and universe believer as that is what the Bible teaches. Not what these guys have had to put with.

I would think so as: During the Big Bang, all matter and energy were concentrated in a very small, hot, and dense point. What I have never figured out is where that place could be as there was only non-existence when it is said to have been in this point. Now if everybody was trying to convince me that this was just based on an assumption, I would not have a problem with that. But every one here is adamite that it is a fact. Which it is not.

I would like to just make a comment here. I hear mentioned about the :BBT making predictions which it does not. A prediction is something that is told far in advance of the event taking place. The BBT is based completely on events that have taken place in the past.

Enjoy,

 

[ratiocinator]

Everybody likes to make fun of what Isaiah says, because stretching out of the universe does not sit well with their understanding of and expanding universe.

Who's this "everybody"? The passage is simply irrelevant to the expanding universe.

So, the BBT tells me my Bible is correct and that was written 2400 years before the BB came along.

Laughable.

 

[Pogo]

Who's this "everybody"? The passage is simply irrelevant to the expanding universe.


Laughable.

There is some confusion in his mind it seems. On the one hand we have his assumption that this ancient story is a description of the origin of the universe etc. and that which is called a conclusion, in his case without evidence that there is some interpretation that makes his assumption correct and others that without assumptions beyond the evidences regularity of the universe we can conclude that the BBT theory is our best understanding of the origin of the universe. etc.

This seems to be a common misconception of several basic concepts.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is some confusion in his mind it seems. On the one hand we have his assumption that this ancient story is a description of the origin of the universe etc. and that which is called a conclusion, in his case without evidence that there is some interpretation that makes his assumption correct and others that without assumptions beyond the evidences regularity of the universe we can conclude that the BBT theory is our best understanding of the origin of the universe. etc.

This seems to be a common misconception of several basic concepts.

Yes, there's also a contradiction or confusion because on another thread @icant is arguing against the GR view of time, and hence the entire theoretical basis of the BBT.

 

[River Sea]

Religious Scientism Derivatives?

Do you often use both first-order derivatives and second-order derivatives when articulating religious scientism, or do you focus only on one of them, either the first or second-order derivative, while there is no need for the other when articulating, and what is the reason you do so so you can articulate?

First-Order Derivative​

The first order derivatives tell about the direction of the function whether the function is increasing or decreasing. The first derivative math or first-order derivative can be interpreted as an instantaneous rate of change. It can also be predicted from the slope of the tangent line.

Second-Order Derivative​

The second-order derivatives are used to get an idea of the shape of the graph for the given function. The functions can be classified in terms of concavity. The concavity of the given graph function is classified into two types namely:

• Concave Up
• Concave Down

Derivatives Meaning | First and Second order Derivatives, Formulas and Examples

Derivatives are defined as the varying rate of change of a function with respect to an independent variable. Visit BYJU'S to learn types and formulas of derivatives with proofs in detail.

byjus.com