Erebus
Well-Known Member
No. . . no, don't! It's not correct. A mountain is not high enough to demonstrate a "round" (circular) earth.
Willamena saves the day!
It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. . . no, don't! It's not correct. A mountain is not high enough to demonstrate a "round" (circular) earth.
Haha.Willamena saves the day!
It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:
Alright I'll let you have that one, though that particular example was too easy
How about the big bang?
Could you prove to me that the sun is in fact made of gas?
Show me that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.
By the way, don't forget the rules.
Haha.
Well, to prove the earth round I would simply use sticks and shadows, as the Greeks did.
Willamena saves the day!
It turns out I won't let you have that one :sorry1:
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 quarks.
The sun being made of gas, on the other hand, Is not so hard to prove. We can simulate the nuclear forces in controlled settings, and record the similarities between the amount of radiation we detect from the sun and the levels our controlled expirement produced. This way, we can be sure that the radiation is consistent with that of nuclear reactions dealing with Hydrogen and Helium. It was the sun that helped us uncover the secrets behind the atom bomb, using the same principles. We can prove that the effects of such reactions will simulate the type of behavior we see on the sun, more specifically the process of convection, or transfer of mass to the surface where it is expelled as heat and light. Since we know the nature of the elements, thanks to chemistry, we can deduce that only a certain composition of gasses and conditions will create the right environment for the sun to exist as it does. We can use smaller scale expirements to properly test MOST phenomenon in the macro universe.
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 frame of reference is the key to relativity. Any observer in any frame of reference can preform the same expirement, regardless of speed and direction, and get the same result. The reason space time is considered as a single aspect, is because the natural state of all objects is in motion, therefore you are never stationary relative to other objects. your speed and direction, or position in space time, is relative to the objects around you, and can only be measured against that which is absolute, or in other words, relative to the speed of light.
That's about as straightforward of an explanation as you can get.
The speed of light is absolute, meaning THE SAME TO ALL OBSERVERS.
the laws of physics work for any frame of reference.
they are absolute. The only condition you need to meet to be absolute is that it is constant, or the same for all observers.
so, tell me, do words mean anything to you outside of what meaning you think is convenient at the time?
The idea of duck is not absolute, either. ideas, definitions,meanings are relative to their application. the idea of a duck is extracted from experience. if you have never known what a duck is, you have no idea what it is. the idea is not absolute.
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 is. the "laws of physics" are considered the same for all observers not because they are absolute, but because in physics, we are forced to make certain assumptions about the nature of the universe in oreder to make other assumptions about our measurements. we assume that the laws of physics are universally the same. we can only assume this, as we have never been anywhere else but earth.
however, holding the laws of physics up as relgious truth is unbecoming of an atheist, i must admonish you for doing it. :angel2:
HOWEVER..regarding the O.P., shoudl atheists shut up about god as they know nothing about it? IMO, no they have a right to voice their opinion just like anyone else. Its all relative
And more sure.thats even easier that flying around the world
hmmm, have you ever met an ideal duck?
A constant is the same each time it is measured. Absolute is something whole and complete just as it is. I can see a possibility for the terms being interchangable, though I wouldn't use them that way.
That's all well and good but isn't this just what your science books and scientists have told you? Remember the restrictions. Have you performed these tests? Have you seen it? If not then you are taking the scientist's word for this phenomena on faith. Therein lies my point, everything we believe but have not witnessed personally is taken on faith. This includes religion and it also includes science.
Sure i have i took chemistry.
I actually enjoyed chemistry
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 think of my idea of a Duck, in realtion to ME, or MY duck. While we all think of different ducks, what is absolute, is the IDEA OF A DUCK.
are we done yet
so, the duck which can be named is not the Eternal Duck?
this "absolute duck" of which you speak, does it reside in heaven and is it all-powerful? however, i find it amusing that you also have said we may each have our own 'personal duck". just like our own personal jesus. u gotta love it! :angel2:
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 faith?
Or, better yet, and I know the sentiment exists, that the scientific method can not be proved, and is fallible?
I would argue that a 99% confirmation rate is better than 0%, as when we are discussing "Faith".
I personally would take much of what science presents on faith, because I do trust scientific method . The scientific facts that I can prove for myself do not need to be taken on faith (as I have personal experience of them), but then the same applies to supernatural "facts".
Simply put, I treat science and the supernatural the same way. If I can get it to work for myself I accept it as "fact", if I am unable to prove it for myself, but it still makes sense to me then I will take it on faith.
As for the last part... Nothing can be proved until we can "prove" reality. I don't like to use this argument too often though, as I think that this concept is something that people should be aware of, but not necessarily rely on. It can be a bit of a cop out. To me, reality is subjective, which is why I place such importance on personal experience over scientifically or religiously established "fact".