the universe and space....?

yes even i agree
photons have zero mass, yet can be particles, or energy
(in Toronto electrons have ZERO MASS!
they can be energy, or MESS!) Crying or Very sad

and Ican, it wasn't "W" in '65, must have been 'Daddy';
what really scares me:
is there going to be a Bush family holy ghost! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I'll explain further,
A photon is described as having "no rest mass" but when it's acting like a good little photon it has a mass.
I think that this is shown by the little gold foil reflecting cards in an exausted bell chamber.
Also indicated by the "gravitational lens" effect. This also rapidly leads to a discussion of space.

A gold leaf "card" with 1/2 of one side of it painted black along the vertical axis placed in an exausted bell shaped glass will rotate when exposed to sunlight.
Paint 1/2 of each side to make a "sunmill". A strand from a spider web will probably make a satisfactory support. They are not too powerful.

0 Replies

so then when the George Bell 'gold baseball' card is exposed to photons,
the spider shifts toward the red as it spins away from us, and toward the blue, if it spins toward us; that was easy;
now how about a colour blind spider? under a 'black light', seen through a gravitational lens?

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Ican, it wasn't "W" in '65, must have been 'Daddy';

My <source> says that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, and The Washington Post scooped FOX News: dubya, now 57, done did it in '65 & '98 & 2003 and blamed it, respectively on Johnson, Clinton and George Washington. The same <source> says the extreme right prayed for it all to happen. Twisted Evil

[quote="BoGoWo"}what really scares me:
is there going to be a Bush family holy ghost! Twisted Evil

[/quote]

Wake up boy! There has been at least one for 227 years. :wink:

Check it out with demoparrahnoyah! Laughing

0 Replies

"Check it out with demoparrahnoyah! "

don't need that thanks, i'm quite 'regular'! Shocked

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Some here have asserted that God exists.
Some here have asserted God does not exist.
Some here have asserted they don't know whether God exists or not.

One here, namely me, has asserted that he has insufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is.

I infer that all the others here do have what they think is sufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is, because without such a definition, the first three assertions are at best a joke.

So, please provide your definitions, unless you are joking.

Quote:

....because without such a definition, the first three assertions are at best a joke.

Only to someone who wants to make them a joke in furtherance of a personal agenda. Otherwise, any reasonable, intelligent individual can look at any of those three statements and accept and understand the thought being communicated. They are reasonable statements of positions despite the fact that a definition of "God" could be added in explanation.

Quote:

One here, namely me, has asserted that he has insufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is.

Well...before you saw the advantage of not having this INTELLIGENCE thing of yours be synonymous with GOD -- you certainly had no trouble defining a God. I think this assertion of yours is nonsense - something brought in here simply because it provides a short-term advantage for you. Consider that you actually want to define a metaphysical "thing" which controls (or at least heavily influences) the evolution of existence -this INTELLIGENCE -- and you want to be able to say "It is not God I am describing."

By even suggesting that your INTELLIGENCE -- despite its incredible power, is not God -- you are in effect, partially defining God. God, in your definition, is not what you are asserting influences the evolution of existence.

Gimme a break.

Quote:

I infer that all the others here do have what they think is sufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is, because without....

You infer way too much -- and you infer incorrectly here.

I do not have to "define" any God in order to have the agnostic position I have. In fact, I often write the agnostic statement as: "I do not know if there is a GOD; if there are gods; or if there are no gods."

In debate with atheists, I often mention that they cannot logically assert "...there are no gods...", just by commenting on the gods presently in favor.

I am acknowledging that no matter how one defines God, GOD, god, gods -- I do not know if they exist or not.

If you want to pat yourself on the back while taking a shot at everyone else as you did here, Ican, at least recognize that a statement directed at "...all the others here..." is painting with an inappropriately broad brush.

0 Replies

A person who asserts that no matter how one defines God, GOD, god, gods, that person will not know if they exist or not, is implying the following:

A person who asserts that no matter how one defines anything, that person will not know if that thing exists or not, is implying that they probably cannot know anything for certain.

That's ok by me. I think I don't know anything for certain. I simply gamble on my judgment of the probability that some things are true and some other things are not true.

There are more than a moogol things one can, if one chooses, define as God, GOD, god, gods (e.g., quarks to queens, golfballs to galaxies, ureters to universes, keys to keyboards, pencils to pontificators).

There is a doctrine called animism.

Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: an·i·mism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: German Animismus, from Latin anima soul
Date: 1832
1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit
2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies
- an·i·mist /-mist/ noun
- an·i·mis·tic /"a-n&-'mis-tik/ adjective

There are some animists for which things of various kinds are gods, god, GOD, or God.

So, do I know for certain that a keyboard is or is not god, gods, GOD, or God? Nope!

Does anyone here think a keyboard is god, gods, GOD, or God?

Does anyone here think a keyboard is not god, gods, GOD, or God?

Does anyone else here think they have insufficient valid data to warrant a guess one way or the other?

0 Replies

Main Entry: re·duc·tio ad ab·sur·dum
Pronunciation: ri-'d&k-tE-"O-"ad-&b-'s&r-d&m, -'d&k-sE-O-, -shE-, -'z&r-
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, literally, reduction to the absurd
Date: 1741
1 : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
2 : the carrying of something to an absurd extreme

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

Everybody

I've reviewed several of your posts with my brilliant wife (e.g., she chose to marry and remain married to me for over 49 years).

She observed: "if everything that we sense is real, we perceive is real and we think is real, is not real and is merely an illusion, then surely that includes JL's posts. If JL's posts are in fact an illusion, then why, dear husband, do you pay any attention to them?

I responded: "Ahhhh, ehhhh, hmmmm, Ieeeee, .......... when's my breakfast illusion going to occur? Laughing

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

A person who asserts that no matter how one defines God, GOD, god, gods, that person will not know if they exist or not, is implying the following:

A person who asserts that no matter how one defines anything, that person will not know if that thing exists or not, is implying that they probably cannot know anything for certain.

That's ok by me. I think I don't know anything for certain. I simply gamble on my judgment of the probability that some things are true and some other things are not true.

There are more than a moogol things one can, if one chooses, define as God, GOD, god, gods (e.g., quarks to queens, golfballs to galaxies, ureters to universes, keys to keyboards, pencils to pontificators).

There is a doctrine called animism.

Merriam Webster
www.m-w.com
Main Entry: an·i·mism
Pronunciation: 'a-n&-"mi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: German Animismus, from Latin anima soul
Date: 1832
1 : a doctrine that the vital principle of organic development is immaterial spirit
2 : attribution of conscious life to objects in and phenomena of nature or to inanimate objects
3 : belief in the existence of spirits separable from bodies
- an·i·mist /-mist/ noun
- an·i·mis·tic /"a-n&-'mis-tik/ adjective

There are some animists for which things of various kinds are gods, god, GOD, or God.

So, do I know for certain that a keyboard is or is not god, gods, GOD, or God? Nope!

Does anyone here think a keyboard is god, gods, GOD, or God?

Does anyone here think a keyboard is not god, gods, GOD, or God?

Does anyone else here think they have insufficient valid data to warrant a guess one way or the other?

If you want to discuss things -- we are of one mind. I love to discuss things.

If you want to be absurd, you're going to have to find someone else to be absurd with -- or be absurd on your own.

0 Replies

i'm confused... why is it that you said photons can/do have a mass?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Uh Oh ... this is it, I guess. The future ain't so bright, after all. Suppose we oughtta start makin' plans?
Heavens: We're DOOMED

WHAT'S THE PURPOSE? Laughing

If OOU is purposeless, then can there be anything within OOU that is purposeful?

Among the alleged purposes of some humans is learning how and why we are here. Some answer the <how> by referencing the implications of various laws alleged to have been discovered in nature and subsequently successfully used to predict the probable consequences of various events (both natural events and human experimental events).

Learning the <why> continues to ellude us. Some folks say there is no <why>, there is just an <is>. Why are such folks so sure that is the way it <is>?

Some folks say that only some living organisms can think and give themselves purpose; all the rest of the stuff of OOU does not have the ability to think and give itself purpose. Why are such folks so sure that is the way it <is>?

Some folks say that humans will probably never have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess one way or the other. Why are such folks so sure that is the way it <is>?

0 Replies

USAFHokie wrote:

i'm confused... why is it that you said photons can/do have a mass?

As Mech and Bo posted, the rest mass of photons is alleged by particle physicists to be zero. Yet the photon does travel a curved path in a gravitational field. How come?

Some answer by saying that gravitational fields curve space and consequently the "shortest distance" in that space for a photon to travel is a curved path.

Others say that the energy of a moving anything exhibits mass and is consequently attracted by gravity. So a photon moving at the speed of light is said to have mass on that account, and, therefore its path is affected by the nature of the gravitational field within which it is traveling.

These explanations do not appear to me to be mutually contradictory, so I guess they are both true.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

[Some folks say that humans will probably never have sufficient valid data to warrant a guess one way or the other. Why are such folks so sure that is the way it <is>?

You should be able to answer that question yourself, Ican, because it is people like you who make statements like that.

I know I would never make that kind of statement.

0 Replies

Frank, It depends on what is, is. Wink

ci

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Some here have asserted that God exists.
Some here have asserted God does not exist.
Some here have asserted they don't know whether God exists or not.

One here, namely me, has asserted that he has insufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is.

IT'S ABSURD:lol: IT'S PREPOSTUROUS Laughing

IT'S LUDICROUS Laughing

So far, no one here has volunteered a definition of God. This situation persists despite the fact that all have asserted either that God exists, God doesn't exist, or it's probably not knowable whether God exists or not.

I'LL COME TO THE RESCUE Laughing

Ok then! I'll guess a definition of God, despite the fact I have insufficient, valid data to warrant a guess about what the definition of God is! I am not advocating this definition. I'll accept ANY alternative definition to what I guess here that anyone prefers. In fact, I prefer to debate an alternative.

Are you ready, Laughing

?

GOD IS OOU! Shocked

OOU = Our Observable Universe. It includes all that we can validly infer from our valid observations.

OOU may or may not be intelligent. I think I have sufficient valid data to infer that OOU is intelligent, but is nonetheless fallible and not omni anything. However, the validity of my data is debatable, AND THEREFORE OOU IS NOT DEFINED BY ME TO BE INTELLIGENT, FALLIBLE, AND NOT OMNI ANYTHING! Crying or Very sad

I think I have encountered a preponderance of data from which I can validly infer OOU exists, and therefore God by my definition must necessarily exist too.

Those who think reality is an illusion will, of course, disagree that I have valid evidence that OOU exists. However, I claim that if you who think <it all> an illusion and explicitly claim <it all> is an illusion, then you compel me by that very action to think you contradict your own thinking. How could it be otherwise? If I treat your explicit claim as an illusion, then I am compelled to reject it on that account. If I treat it as an element of reality and not an illusion, then I am compelled to reject the thinking that <it all> is an illusion.

So please give me your own definition of God. I refuse to defend my own definition, because I do not have even an idea how I might do that. I cannot defend my definition. Confused

0 Replies

ican, A very good attempt at a definition of god/OOU. However, I would suggest one modificaiton to your description from "illusion" to "perception." c.i. Wink

0 Replies

ASK AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE (sometimes Laughing

)

Those who think reality is A PERCEPTION will, of course, disagree that I have valid evidence that OOU exists. However, I claim that if you who think <it all> A PERCEPTION and explicitly claim <it all> is A PERCEPTION, then you compel me by that very action to think you contradict your own thinking. How could it be otherwise? If I treat your explicit claim as A PERCEPTION, then I am compelled to reject it on that account. If I treat it as an element of reality and not A PERCEPTION, then I am compelled to reject the thinking that <it all> is A PERCEPTION.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT

I infer from those who claim that reality doesn't exist, that they think A PERCEPTION is mutually exclusive reality. In other words, they think the existence of a perception is independent of whether or not there exists a reality.

However, if my inference is incorrect and these folks actually think reality does exist, then they ought not have any quarrel with my claim that OOU exists, and, therefore, the God I have defined exists.

0 Replies

Observing is one thing. How we perceive it is another. c.i.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Observing is one thing. How we perceive it is another. c.i.

Yes! I agree! In deed, what we infer from those observations/perceptions is still one more thing.

The modern scientific method has worked well for us since its inception over 200 years ago. Because it grants your premise, it promotes the repeated investigation of any theory or data so that it be carefully examined by independent researchers who are well motivated to detect flaws.

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know