Gravity indeed does warp space and time? Einstein Prediction

[hergieburbur]

But many religions have this same idealogy, that there is nothing left to know, and that a single old text might contain all the answers. It's just proposterous.

Umm, most of them (including the one you are referring to)don't. That is a stereotypical generalization that pretty much shows a lack of in-depth understanding of the religions you are talking about. Many (indeed most) religions are about improving one's self and searching for enlightenment through knowledge of ones self and his surroundings, for example buddhism. I think you are making the mistake of projecting the views of certain religious groups during certain time periods onto the religions as a whole. Take a world religions class sometime (usually a good anthropology course as well), or study some of them a little more in depth.

By the way, Crichton also wrote "State of Fear", which points out the similarities between Global warming research and the study of eugenics (basically cleansing those of inferior genes from the gene pool). One of his comments on the book:

I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression. ... But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."

 

[immagikman]

You think the huge panel of scientists meeting around the world to discuss global warming and it's effects on our lives are "nuts" huh? You and everyone else ignoring all the melting ice, the unexplained dying of animals...can all be the first to die as the tides rise, the hurricanes and tsunamis increase, and the famines and water shortages begin. I'll be MORE than happy to let you try to live in Florida in 20 years. You'll be more than welcome to have ALL the beachfront houses. In fact, I'm sure that with all the high costs of insurance there (and it being tough to even find it) that you can likely find houses there going for cheap now...

I didn't call anyone nuts, Im saying that the hype and hysteria have come and gone before and if you dont learn anything from history then you would be errrrr unintelligent. I lived through the Same exact thing in the 1970's.....except these same scientists and governments were scaring us kids silly by telling us that we were doomed to an Iceage due to mankinds poluting of the atmosphere.....later as I grew up, I learned that they Hype is all about money and who gets it from where.

Yes I think we should use our technology to improve our efficiency and lower emissions and reduce waste....that is just good science....hysteria and media frenzy for people competing for government grants and tax dollars......thats for suckers.

 

[immagikman]

I'd also argue that solar power IS a viable idea. Biosynthesis in plastic or glass containers could be easily done on a large scale. Ever watch algae grow in an aquarium? It's nearly impossible to stop and is RICH AS HELL in nutrients. Toss a bit of roadkill or a few leaves in a glass jar filled with water, seal it, and watch an ecosystem come to life my friend. We have bacteria and algae, the two stasis of life after water and they produce so much energy. All we have to do is a little research and put them into action. It's energy just waiting to happen.

Dude, something you do not understand about CAPITALISM...if it were viable and there was money to be made in the arena...IT WOULD BE the way things are. Solar energy is slowly and I mean slowly getting more cost effective, but it is as of today still at least twice if not 3 times as expensive as our current Hydrocarbon based energy systems.

PopSci and Scientific American have both released articles on studies of Biodeisel and Corn based alcohol feul systems...the cost of growing the stuff and the wastes and pesticides and fertilizers end up making it more "dirty" than existing fuel sources...(this is a reletivley new announcement by the by).


Gads.....as I said...Im all for alternative fuels and energy sources...as long as it is economical and a step forward and not back. I refuse to give up my luxurious lifestyle

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Actually, a lot of the cause is becuase the Solar System as a whole is getting hotter.

I sorta thought so too - even though the Sun's energy output has only increased a tiny amount in the last 2000 years or so, in a dynamic equilibrium system a small input change can yield a very large output change (chaos theory).

Will have to look it up but I recall reading in an old Astronomy issue that the Sun was 30% cooler when the Earth first formed, some 4 and a half billion years ago.

My idea (pat. pending ) is for NASA to rig up a gigantic Mylar/aluminum sunshade in geostationary orbit. This would consist of rotatable panels about a kilometer square each, loosely connected with cable rigging to provide some stability. That way we could reflect a portion of the incoming sunlight back out into space.

Or, thinking ahead, we could redirect it all to some enemy country like N. Korea and vaporize the hell outta them commies . I doubt their Taipodong 2 missiles could travel 22K miles into space, or even 60 miles without exploding .

For Iran, we could just make sure they are in permanent shadow and then charge them billions per year to supply food - about 1 Kg of foodstuffs per barrel of crude would be good

 

[eric54]

That isnt what I said at all, I make no reference to necessitating religion to enforce value upon life. I understand you have intent to contradict me, but please dont use disinformation in the process. I will now clear up what you seem to have misunderstood. I simply meant, that we all need to value life, and religions are not against that. I merely was stating that religions as a whole also value life, therefore they can used in a beneficial way to protect it. It is my belief that this life is meaningless if there is not an afterlife, thats my opinion, so no need to feel threatend by me.

As for StrangeStranger, you are making incredibly ignorant and uninformed generalizations of religion. Religion by definition is an ideology, be it personal, or part of an organized institution. You clearly are an evolutionist, thus, you believe in the religion of evolution. Unless you can prove how matter started from nothing, you cannot conclude it as fact. That is why religion exists, the question "how did we get here?" has been around since the beginning of man, and it would be foolish to assume your particular answer is any more valid than mine. Take a look where people were educated hundreds, or even thousands of years ago, then look at who backed those scientists. You'll find monarchies guilty of stiffling scientific progress far more often that any church ever did. The church was pretty much the only source of scientific progress up right until the industrial revolution.

As for orthodox or roman, my point was simply that as a person, who is also a memeber of a religion, is not the problem, and certainly wasnt implying either was better, if you interpreted it that way I appologise (i have attented orthodox masses regularly in the past).

As a final note, my entire point was that the following holds true to everyone, no matter religion or race. Treat others the same way you would treat yourself.

I think it would be fair to close this discussion and go back to einstiens theories.

EDIT: Unintentionally put hergie instead of Strange, I appologise for any trouble this has caused.

 

[r0x0r]

You clearly are an evolutionist, thus, you believe in the religion of evolution.

A small piece of advice; please don't call a belief in evolution a religion. Many evolutionists are atheists/agnostics, and would rather not be associated with the term religion. Don't flame me for this, I'm just advising you for your future reference.

Unless you can prove how matter started from nothing, you cannot conclude it as fact.

The same goes for god; unless you can prove he/she/it exists, then it cannot be fact.

That is why religion exists, the question "how did we get here?" has been around since the beginning of man, and it would be foolish to assume your particular answer is any more valid than mine.

I will agree with you on this; however, this also give credibility to the theory of humans creating god (and not the other way around) as a reason of how we came to be.

Apologies for keeping this going but I felt that I needed to express what I just wrote. I've no ill will towards you because you don't share my beliefs though.


Edit: formatting

 

[JonnyDough]

You clearly are an evolutionist, thus, you believe in the religion of evolution.

A small piece of advice; please don't call a belief in evolution a religion. Many evolutionists are atheists/agnostics, and would rather not be associated with the term religion. Don't flame me for this, I'm just advising you for your future reference.

Unless you can prove how matter started from nothing, you cannot conclude it as fact.

The same goes for god; unless you can prove he/she/it exists, then it cannot be fact.

That is why religion exists, the question "how did we get here?" has been around since the beginning of man, and it would be foolish to assume your particular answer is any more valid than mine.

I will agree with you on this; however, this also give credibility to the theory of humans creating god (and not the other way around) as a reason of how we came to be.

Apologies for keeping this going but I felt that I needed to express what I just wrote. I've no ill will towards you because you don't share my beliefs though.


Edit: formatting

I think many of us would prefer to believe in "nothing" (Oh how sad for us that we will be going to a non-existant hell) but excuse us for being tired of having silly idealogy surrounding us and shoved down our throats. Simply put, unless we have something concrete and tangible to believe in, we'd rather just have a mystery to solve.

 

[hergieburbur]

Did you even read my posts AT ALL?? You could not have misunderstood them any more if you tried. My whole point was that certain people on here are assigning attributes to religion (IE warmongering, stifling progress, etc) that are incorrect and a result of ignorance. I was trying to point out that while people have used them for negative ends, religions are a positive force in the world.

As for being an evolutionist, I don't know where you come up with this stuff (especially since I stated my belief system earlier), but you couldn't be more WRONG. Next time, please try reading my posts a little harder or thinking a little more before you go assigning judgement, and DO NOT ever try to tell me what I believe again.

Thank you.

 

[cal7]

As for orthodox or roman, my point was simply that as a person, who is also a memeber of a religion, is not the problem, and certainly wasnt implying either was better, if you interpreted it that way I appologise (i have attented orthodox masses regularly in the past).

what i mean is that if someone says i`m catholic or orthodox or whatever else,needs to have in mind thats its not actually a name that makes a difference between religions.People in charge (the Pope or Patriarch or anyone else) divided simple people like you and me for reasons that have nothing to do with faith or the basics of being a good christian.We have to accept that everyone of us is responsible for whatever wrong religion brings to the world.And anyone saying he doesnt believe so he is clear of any responsibility reminds me of Pilate.

 

[bolt14]

Umm, what happened to Tom's HARDWARE???This isnt Tom's SITE FOR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS!!

:!: :!: :!: :!:

 

[corvetteguy]

Umm, what happened to Tom's HARDWARE???This isnt Tom's SITE FOR RELIGIOUS DISCUSSIONS!!

:!: :!: :!: :!:

We gotta talk about it somewhere..

 

[Fernando_M]

And this I why I said we should stay away from religion as a topic. ANYONE who says that any given faith does nothing but promote ignorance and war is every bit as illusory and idiotic as those that believe anything they are told in the name of faith.

But many religions have this same idealogy, that there is nothing left to know, and that a single old text might contain all the answers. It's just proposterous.

Umm, most of them (including the one you are referring to)don't. That is a stereotypical generalization that pretty much shows a lack of in-depth understanding of the religions you are talking about. Many (indeed most) religions are about improving one's self and searching for enlightenment through knowledge of ones self and his surroundings, for example buddhism. I think you are making the mistake of projecting the views of certain religious groups during certain time periods onto the religions as a whole. Take a world religions class sometime (usually a good anthropology course as well), or study some of them a little more in depth.
[/quote]
I couldn't agree more and I don't know what kind of person is voting you down.
My opinion is that we should respect anyone and their beliefs, unless they (or their religion) clearly supports something that is just wrong or bad for other people (I'm talking about big things, like being against a whole group of people and wanting them dead). And by having respect I don't mean that we have to agree and accept everything they say or do.
I actually don't have a religion although I do believe in God, but I used to be catholic and I still have many religious friends. I must say that none of those friends are blind by their religion so I have no reason to lose my respect for them. I hope I was clear enough for all of you to understand what I tried to say.

That isnt what I said at all, I make no reference to necessitating religion to enforce value upon life. I understand you have intent to contradict me, but please dont use disinformation in the process. I will now clear up what you seem to have misunderstood. I simply meant, that we all need to value life, and religions are not against that. I merely was stating that religions as a whole also value life, therefore they can used in a beneficial way to protect it. It is my belief that this life is meaningless if there is not an afterlife, thats my opinion, so no need to feel threatend by me.

As for hergie, you are making incredibly ignorant and uninformed generalizations of religion. Religion by definition is an ideology, be it personal, or part of an organized institution. You clearly are an evolutionist, thus, you believe in the religion of evolution. Unless you can prove how matter started from nothing, you cannot conclude it as fact. That is why religion exists, the question "how did we get here?" has been around since the beginning of man, and it would be foolish to assume your particular answer is any more valid than mine. Take a look where people were educated hundreds, or even thousands of years ago, then look at who backed those scientists. You'll find monarchies guilty of stiffling scientific progress far more often that any church ever did. The church was pretty much the only source of scientific progress up right until the industrial revolution.

As for orthodox or roman, my point was simply that as a person, who is also a memeber of a religion, is not the problem, and certainly wasnt implying either was better, if you interpreted it that way I appologise (i have attented orthodox masses regularly in the past).

As a final note, my entire point was that the following holds true to everyone, no matter religion or race. Treat others the same way you would treat yourself.

I think it would be fair to close this discussion and go back to einstiens theories.

I agree with you on some things, but where did hergie say those things? I think you really misunderstood what he said or you confused him with someone else.

 

[eric54]

Hergie, I am very VERY VERY SORRY! I did not make the right reference! I've been away from the computer until now and went to bed immediately following my post, I did not catch my gross error until just now. StrangeStranger was the culpret I meant to refer to, based on the following quote by him:

StrangeStranger
i'll disagree there as there is nothing worse than the chatholic church IMO. they do so much damage especially the messages they send in the developing world. they are sick, parasites who once they found people got some education and figured out how stupid religion is, they move onto the poor people of africa and the like and begin the brainwashing there.

nope, all religions are bad and for the weak.

Please forgive me for this overlook, I couldnt have made a more terrible error. Again, I am sorry and I did not mean to direct anythign to you, since we are clearly on the same level. It is and always was StrangeStranger who I meant to refer to. I want to be very clear that it was a huge error on my part

Edit: I have changed the name to the proper person, once again, I am sorry for any trouble this has caused.

 

[m0rk]

I think im able to find a common factor for us all. And that is:

Sharikou is a satantic fanboy with horns that lives in the dungeons of MS headquaters, and that BaronMatrix is his hellhound (kneedog) and biggest follower.

And thus this religious discussion should be over

 

[r0x0r]

Sharikou is a satantic fanboy with horns that lives in the dungeons of MS headquaters, and that BaronMatrix is his hellhound (kneedog) and biggest follower.

Speaking of which, I haven't heard from either of them for quite a while now.

Where did they go?

 

[hergieburbur]

I think we can all agree on that...

 

[blunc]

Back to the OP topic for just a second....

IF it wasn't for time, everything would happen all at once.

There is no gravity, the earth sucks.

We are all "time travellers", we are just locked in to traveling forward at this time.

Everything we do, see, hear, smell and feel are just how we perceive our existance, those that have a perception outside of what is considered "normal" are persecuted until they are "normal".

 

[ches111]

All_things,

I think yadge does have some issues but he also has some somewhat near valid points.

I think the realm of science can best be explained as "what we (know/think we know) so far. With the "so far: part being the key.

I fight with a buddy of mine all the time (physics major). It is too easy/too fun to get him riled up.

For instance I tell him that an inch is not necessarily an inch. He breaks out his ruler and shows me. An inch is an acceptable/known unit of measure. However the very dynamics introduced by PHYSICS itself create cause for disbelief that an inch is in fact an inch. It is acceptable for us all to believe that a ruler in fact measures and inch. However give the altitude, barometric pressure, the temperature, the media (metal ruler, plastic, wood), densities of materials used... There are a large number of things that can indeed influence this known unit of measurement. The marks on a ruler are typically very small but a sharp pencil can make a line that fits within those marks on the ruler. They in fact could be to the left or right of the individual marks. But again this is acceptable.

Granted there are specifications for the calibration of what we call a true inch that mostly address these stated issues. However it still can only be as exact as the environment it is calibrated within.

So science becomes the application of known/theorized data (to acceptable levels/units) to typically solve/understand some issue/need.

For instance is an inch calibrated down to the particle level? Which particles would you use and from which medium? Not yet!

The problem for science is the "we know" issue. Everyday the scientific community gets a new box to think in. Things that were in the "we know" category just years ago are now in the "oops we really did not know, but we thought" category.

The most successful people in science are the ones who are SURE that we "DO NOT KNOW".

To put into work the info I provided above please read these:

Prior to the discoveries in these two articles life was thought/known to begin at >100nm

Life at high temperatures

Life at 100nm or less?

These scientist got a new box to think in

 

[capnbfg]

bump

 

[Dekasav]

I kinda feel like shooting you..... and I wish I had time to read this, but it's the day before my last finals, and I have stuff to do.

Bump it next week.

 

[randomizer]