Don't dictate beliefs

Sep 5, 2012 Full story: The Star Press 11,175

No one else can say otherwise? That is basically saying those who do "believe in God" are better? Hardly.

Full Story

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10524 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Here we go again:

Right, all 1% of it.

At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.

The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!

The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.

http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#10525 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The scientific method is self correcting.
<quoted text>
Keep trying to convince yourself. Fraudulent science is all you've got. But long as it makes you happy - go for it.

LMAO
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10526 Jan 7, 2013
The scientific method is self correcting.
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, all 1% of it.
At a whopping 1%, science corrects more of their errors than you do, lol.
The included link is more on the 1% of “self-correcting” science!
The author explains why outsiders are so important, since we can't rely of science to find the errors.
http://blog.sethroberts.net/2010/09/06/is-sci...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#10527 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
Just how “self-correcting” is science?
Oh, the rate is about 1% to 1.5%, lol.
So the remaining 98% or 99% is unreliable?
I'm afraid so......
http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/12/just-ho...
No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.
Way to conflate things. Since most christians are not in jail, then that means all christians are evil, by your own logic here.
KJV

United States

#10528 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Already this shows an incredible lack of understanding of the Big Bang model. It does NOT describe an explosion where matter is thrown outward from some center. It never has. Instead, it portrays an expansion of space itself with the matter and energy being carried along by the expansion of space.

[QUOTE](3) For years scientists have been attempting to measure the microwave radiation that is coming in from all parts of the universe. It is conjectured that this radiation is the left-over heat from the original big bang. The problem is, wherever this radiation has been measured, it has been found to be extremely uniform, which does not harmonize with the fact that the universe itself is not uniform; rather, it is “clumpy,” i.e., composed of intermittent galaxies and voids. If the big bang theory were true, there should be a correlation between the material composition of the universe (since everything emits thermal heat) and the corresponding radiation temperature. But such is not the case."
https://m.christiancourier.com/articles/133-t...
"

This is very badly out of date. The anisotropies predicted by the Big bang theory were found in 1992. Since that time, they have been extensively studied and have confirmed and elucidated the Big Bang theory. In particular, the details of these anisotropies are consistent with the Big bang theory with cosmic inflation, with the recent WMAP data allowing predictions of the higher peaks in the anisotropies which were confirmed by ground-based observations. In particular, the amounts of dark energy, dark matter, baryonic matter, and energy from light *all* affect the positions of the peaks in the anisotropies and form a collection of data that is very unlikely to be consistent with any theory, but *are* consistent with the Big Bang.

My recommendation is to get your information from someone who knows cosmology and is not using out of date information.
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?
KJV

United States

#10529 Jan 7, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>Or you're to stupid to give one.
Bat boy explanation have been given.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#10530 Jan 7, 2013
Straw man.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?
KJV

United States

#10531 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for sharing those pearls of wisdom.

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if there is some scientific research somewhere showing that chickens evolved from coins.
LOL

So if there was this prechicken coin
Is that what you should use at KFC to pay the bill?
KJV

United States

#10532 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>You must be too stupid to understand
Proper punctuation.[sic]
Must be
KJV

United States

#10533 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
<quoted text>Straw man.
Sorry Tinkles I am asking a real question. Just trying to grasp which Big Bang we are looking at this time.

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10534 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you back on Pi?
You must be too stupid to understand
A proper explanation.
Wrong, longears - sorry, KJV.

Sorry, my mistake, you sound just like longears.

Truth be told, I'm laughing at your hypocrisy.

You have no problem accepting what the Bible says when it gives a period of six days for creation.

However you refuse to accept what the Bible says when it gives the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter as three.

Come on, wetpants, you can admit it...

There's no shame in admitting that you don't believe everything the Bible says.

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10535 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Put the Bible down?
What should I read in place of it - science mythology about evolution?
Hmmm

Let's ask Mark Twain again - I know you like what he has to say.

"It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies."

"The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes...The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live. Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.....There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain."

Since: Apr 08

Nottingham, UK

#10536 Jan 7, 2013
Thinking wrote:
More massive titspeak from dick4cm.
<quoted text>
Lol

Very good

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10537 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so what you're saying is a singularity that held all the matter of the universe just one day start to expand in a very controlled type of expansion.
Is this correct?
No. First of all, a singularity is not a container. It is not an object that can expand. It is not something that holds matter. A singularity is simply a place where some model blows up. For example, string theory does not have a singularity at what corresponds to the Big Bang: all the values are continuous through that point.

Second, the basic problem for most people when discussing the Big bang is the thought that an expanding universe has to expand *into* something. The expansion of the Big Bang is for space. Matter is everywhere at all times and space itself is expanding. This is true even for the modern theories such as string theory. The Big Bang does NOT postulate a nugget of dense matter that explodes and sends matter through space. Instead, it holds that *all* of space had matter at a high density and pressure and that space began to expand, taking the matter and energy with it.

Third, your question has, implicitly, the idea that there was a time before the Big Bang. Whether that is true or not is a matter that has not yet been decided. The basic Big bang theory, based on general relativity, has time itself starting at the Big Bang. That time cannot be extended back any further than that is part of what it means to be a singularity. String theory, on the other hand, does have time before the Big Bang, with certain symmetries between the time before and the time after the Big Bang. Loop quantum gravity has a previous universe that undergoes a 'Big Bounce' leading to our universe. One of Hawking's models has time starting at the Big Bang, but the singularity is 'smoothed over' and all geometry is smooth there (think of the north pole: the coordinate system has problems there, but not the geometry itself).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10538 Jan 7, 2013
derek4 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for sharing those pearls of wisdom.
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if there is some scientific research somewhere showing that chickens evolved from coins.
And it wouldn't surprise me if you never actually get a point.
KJV

United States

#10540 Jan 7, 2013
Khatru wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, longears - sorry, KJV.

Sorry, my mistake, you sound just like longears.

Truth be told, I'm laughing at your hypocrisy.

You have no problem accepting what the Bible says when it gives a period of six days for creation.

However you refuse to accept what the Bible says when it gives the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter as three.

Come on, wetpants, you can admit it...

There's no shame in admitting that you don't believe everything the Bible says.
"By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p). We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible.

Ancient standards of measure vary widely, a cubit is generally taken to be about 18 inches, although there are different types of cubits ("common" and "royal", varying from 17 to 22 inches). A handbreadth is taken to be about 3 inches, sometimes being defined as one-sixth of a cubit.
Something else to ponder:

First, mathematically, take the etymology of the words and (the Hebrew word used in this verse, versus the usual word for circumference), and you'll find that the ratio of their numeric value (via Gametria)[(5 + 6 + 100)/(6 + 100)] is 1.0471698, which multiplied by 3 is pi.

Just for the heck of it look up word number "1047" in the Old Testament lexicon. It is "Beth Peor", spelled . Beth is translated "house of," and the first three letters of the last portion, peh, ayin, vaw could very easily be transliterated as "pi." Hence, "house of pi." Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction."

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10541 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"By the way, Solomon built this sea in 1000 B.C., long before the Greeks rediscovered Pi (p). We may not understand some things at first glance, but the problem is with us, not with the Bible.
Ancient standards of measure vary widely, a cubit is generally taken to be about 18 inches, although there are different types of cubits ("common" and "royal", varying from 17 to 22 inches). A handbreadth is taken to be about 3 inches, sometimes being defined as one-sixth of a cubit.
So? How does that change the calculated value of pi?
Something else to ponder:
First, mathematically, take the etymology of the words and (the Hebrew word used in this verse, versus the usual word for circumference), and you'll find that the ratio of their numeric value (via Gametria)[(5 + 6 + 100)/(6 + 100)] is 1.0471698, which multiplied by 3 is pi.
No, 3 times this is 3.141509434 and pi=3.1415926535... More importantly, 3*(111/106) is rational (the ratio of two integers) and pi is irrational.
Just for the heck of it look up word number "1047" in the Old Testament lexicon. It is "Beth Peor", spelled . Beth is translated "house of," and the first three letters of the last portion, peh, ayin, vaw could very easily be transliterated as "pi." Hence, "house of pi." Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction."
Meaningless drivel. The name for the ratio of the circumference and the diameter was not given by the Greeks, but by Leonard Euler in the 1700's. So you are looking at a name given by a European, the name being greek, and your claim is that a text can be interpreted to give that name. Can we say delusional?

The name is a *convention* and not something determined by the mathematics itself. If anything, 2*pi is more fundamental than pi.
KJV

United States

#10542 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>No. First of all, a singularity is not a container. It is not an object that can expand. It is not something that holds matter. A singularity is simply a place where some model blows up. For example, string theory does not have a singularity at what corresponds to the Big Bang: all the values are continuous through that point.

Second, the basic problem for most people when discussing the Big bang is the thought that an expanding universe has to expand *into* something. The expansion of the Big Bang is for space. Matter is everywhere at all times and space itself is expanding. This is true even for the modern theories such as string theory. The Big Bang does NOT postulate a nugget of dense matter that explodes and sends matter through space. Instead, it holds that *all* of space had matter at a high density and pressure and that space began to expand, taking the matter and energy with it.

Third, your question has, implicitly, the idea that there was a time before the Big Bang. Whether that is true or not is a matter that has not yet been decided. The basic Big bang theory, based on general relativity, has time itself starting at the Big Bang. That time cannot be extended back any further than that is part of what it means to be a singularity. String theory, on the other hand, does have time before the Big Bang, with certain symmetries between the time before and the time after the Big Bang. Loop quantum gravity has a previous universe that undergoes a 'Big Bounce' leading to our universe. One of Hawking's models has time starting at the Big Bang, but the singularity is 'smoothed over' and all geometry is smooth there (think of the north pole: the coordinate system has problems there, but not the geometry itself).
Ok so yes I did imply that time started before the Big Bang, it was used loosely to imply this singularity started to expand with out time it is rather hard to described something sitting there and then start to expand with reference of some time.

" a singularity is not a container. It is not an object that can expand."

Having trouble with this.

Wikipedia:

"Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities). According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity. Both general relativity andquantum mechanics break down in describing the Big Bang, but in general, quantum mechanics does not permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. Another type of singularity predicted by general relativity is inside a black hole: any star collapsing beyond a certain point (the Schwarzschild radius) would form a black hole, inside which a singularity (covered by an event horizon) would be formed, as all the matter would flow into a certain point (or a circular line, if the black hole is rotating). This is again according to general relativity without quantum mechanics, which forbids wavelike particles entering a space smaller than their wavelength. These hypothetical singularities are also known as curvature singularities."

Wikipedia:

" the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago,which is thus considered the age of the Universe. After its initial expansion from a singularity"

"The differences are that black hole singularities, of course, do not contain all of the matter and energy in the Universe because there are so many of them. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Another difference is that space and time were born from the Big Bang singularity, and black holes actually stretches out space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether."

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...
KJV

United States

#10543 Jan 7, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>So? How does that change the calculated value of pi?

[QUOTE]Something else to ponder:
First, mathematically, take the etymology of the words and (the Hebrew word used in this verse, versus the usual word for circumference), and you'll find that the ratio of their numeric value (via Gametria)[(5 + 6 + 100)/(6 + 100)] is 1.0471698, which multiplied by 3 is pi."

No, 3 times this is 3.141509434 and pi=3.1415926535... More importantly, 3*(111/106) is rational (the ratio of two integers) and pi is irrational.

[QUOTE]Just for the heck of it look up word number "1047" in the Old Testament lexicon. It is "Beth Peor", spelled . Beth is translated "house of," and the first three letters of the last portion, peh, ayin, vaw could very easily be transliterated as "pi." Hence, "house of pi." Indeed, truth is stranger than fiction.""

Meaningless drivel. The name for the ratio of the circumference and the diameter was not given by the Greeks, but by Leonard Euler in the 1700's. So you are looking at a name given by a European, the name being greek, and your claim is that a text can be interpreted to give that name. Can we say delusional?

The name is a *convention* and not something determined by the mathematics itself. If anything, 2*pi is more fundamental than pi.
"Now that you have some background information, let's look at the actual numbers:

The Calculations

Here again is the quote being referred to:

"And he [Hiram] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one rim to the other it was round all about, and...a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about....And it was an hand breadth thick...." — First Kings, chapter 7, verses 23 and 26

The bowl is said to have had a circumference of thirty cubits and a diameter of ten cubits. The diameter is said to be "from one rim to the other", so this would be the outer diameter; that is, the diameter of the outer mold used to make the bowl.

The circumference is not specified as being the inner or outer circumference, but since using the outer circumference would give us the "ideal" bowl (with no width or thickness), let's instead use the inner circumference, which also, reasonably, would have been the circumference of the mold used to form the inside of the bowl. That is, we will use the two measurements which were necessary for the casting of the piece.

Using eighteen inches for one cubit, we have the following:

outer diameter: 10 cubits, or 180 inches
outer radius: 5 cubits, or 90 inches
inner circumference: 30 cubits, or 540 inches

To find the "Jewish" or "Bible" value for pi, we need to have the inner radius. Once we have that value, we can plug it into the formula for the circumference and compare with the given circumference value of 540 inches.

Since the thickness of the bowl is given as one handsbreadth, then the inner radius must be:

90 – 4 = 86 inches

Let's do the calculations:

inner radius: 86 inches
inner circumference: 540 inches

The circumference formula is C = 2(pi)r, which gives us:

540 = 2(pi)(86)
540 = 172(pi)

Solving, we get pi = 540/172 = 135/43 = 3.1395348837..., or about 3.14.

Um... Isn't "3.14" the approximation we all use for pi? Perhaps those Phoenicians were fairly accurate after all."

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.ht...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#10544 Jan 7, 2013
KJV wrote:
"The differences are that black hole singularities, of course, do not contain all of the matter and energy in the Universe because there are so many of them. There was only one Big Bang singularity, and it contained the whole Universe. Another difference is that space and time were born from the Big Bang singularity, and black holes actually stretches out space to the point where it probably rips the fabric of space-time, and ends time altogether."
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...
The only place in this that I would dispute is the sentence saying that the singularity contained the whole universe. Again, it is more that time cannot be continued back any further and *that* is the 'singularity', i.e, the breakdown of the model. Whether time even makes sense before this point is debatable. We have no evidence either way.

As an analogy, imagine spacetime to be like the surface of the earth. Different latitudes will represent different times and different longitudes will represent different locations. General relativity describes the whole geometry of spacetime. In this analogy, the earliest time is at the south pole; this point is described by ALL longitudes, just as the singularity of the Big Bang is described by being all places in space. In the analogy, as we move north from the south pole, the 'universe', represented by a latitude line, expands. After the equator, the universe begins to contract, until there is another 'singularity' at the north pole.

This analogy is good for quite a number of reasons:
1) General relativity describes spacetime as a single geometric object, NOT as divided into space and time separately.
2) General relativity describes spacetime as curved, in ways similar to the way that the surface of the earth is curved.
3) Just as it makes no sense to talk about 'south of the south pole' or 'north of the north pole', in general relativity, it makes no sense to talk about 'before the Big Bang'.
4) Just as the south pole is not a container, but simply a point on the earth, the singularity is not a container from which the universe expands.
5) A universe with more matter than the critical mass actually is represented by a higher dimensional sphere in general relativity.

Some bad aspects:
1) In the analogy, space itself is curved (the latitude lines). Given current evidence, it appears that space is flat (uncurved) in the real world.
2) In the analogy, there are two singularities: one at the beginning of the universe and one at the end. Current evidence suggests that there was only one singularity in the past. So a trumpet shape might be a better analogy.
3) The obvious fact that spacetime is four dimensional and the surface of the earth is two dimensional (latitude and longitude are the coordinates).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 7 min woodtick57 868
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Morse 231,823
Siro is writing a new book 2 hr thetruth 5
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 5 hr P_Smith 1
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 5 hr P_Smith 1
Reza Aslan: Sam Harris and "New Atheists" aren'... 8 hr P_Smith 1
The Rapture of the Atheists (Nov '09) 9 hr thetruth 7,110

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE