ID goes on: Now there is IF!
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
Intelligent History!
Conventional "theories" of history teach that "stuff happened," which is insolent and implies that we are nothing but random accidents. But Giblets has found definitive proof that history is intelligent, and has worked over the course of millenia towards one singular purpose: the creation of Giblets! Think of everything that had to happen in order for Giblets to be born! Mom Giblets and Dad Giblets had to meet, Grampa Giblets had to flee the great turducken blight back in the Old Country, Napoleon had to destabilize the Gibletsian economy with his unsound policy of weevil regulation. Yes, the birth of Giblets is so unlikely it can only be explained as the supernatural action of a nearly-divine agent acting over the course of thousands of centuries in a way that looks exactly like a bunch of random stuff!
http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/funtelligent-design-so-last-night-we.html[^] Cleek | Image Toolkits | Thumbnail maker
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
IBS (Intelligent Bull Sh1t) That can be what self-righteous cuhurches can call their doctrine.
Pumk1nh3ad illustrates that Intelligent Design oft goes awry. - Ed Gadziemski You did'nt get it. I over estimated you. - Josh Gray
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
I'm still waiting for signs of Intelligent Coding. ;P Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
Intelligent Falling: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512/print/[^] bb |~ bb
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
I'm still waiting for signs of Intelligent Coding. ;P Marc VS2005 Tips & Tricks -- contributions welcome!
-
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK, in the macrouniverse, nothing happens spontaneously. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 13:36 Monday 14th November, 2005
-
-
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK, in the macrouniverse, nothing happens spontaneously. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 13:36 Monday 14th November, 2005
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force?
Perhaps, but could it just be the inclination of any piece of matter to move in the direction of curved space? Though I suppose Newton's other theory would require a force for it to move. Could simply space-time exert a force, since the point of high mass is curving space-time. The amount of force exerted on an object by space-time would be proportional to the amount of curvature. But do you have another theory how gravity acts instantly, and affects time, too? Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
Don't know what IIANAP means, but okay, thanks for the update. :P By they way, if they throw out tachyons, much of Star Trek would no longer exist :( Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
-
Want to help me with AFAIK, too? And yeah, they'd probably come up with some kind of explanation to support their flawed physics. :) Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
-
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK, in the macrouniverse, nothing happens spontaneously. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 13:36 Monday 14th November, 2005
-
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
:laugh: Yeah, I think Einstien had a few things to say about that... :laugh: "Patriotism is the first refuge of a patriot."
-
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK, in the macrouniverse, nothing happens spontaneously. -- Pictures[^] from my Japan trip. -- modified at 13:36 Monday 14th November, 2005
Well, I am A Physicst so I guess I will tune in. The 'theory" that is being referenced is General Realtivity. But, I have to say this is more than just a 'theory'; it's predictions has been found reliable and repeatable often.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK,
The key concept it that 'gravatiton' is a property of all massive matter. The curvature of space-time (at least in this context) is a result due to a massive object travleing through space "dragging" it along. Think of placing a bowling ball on a mattres. You see that the mattress will 'warp' aroung the bowling ball.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around. May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Well, I am A Physicst so I guess I will tune in. The 'theory" that is being referenced is General Realtivity. But, I have to say this is more than just a 'theory'; it's predictions has been found reliable and repeatable often.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
How does that work? If space is curved, ought it not have been affected by some force? AFAIK,
The key concept it that 'gravatiton' is a property of all massive matter. The curvature of space-time (at least in this context) is a result due to a massive object travleing through space "dragging" it along. Think of placing a bowling ball on a mattres. You see that the mattress will 'warp' aroung the bowling ball.
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
> One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
This is wrong. Space is curved because of the properties of massive matter. Not the other way around. May I suggest reading a light book called 'Einstein's Universe' it delves into the pedestrian aspects of The Photoelectric Effect, General & Special Realtivity, & Quantum Electro Dynamics(QED) without the pesky math :) Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Not commenting on the ID/Evolution subject here, but it could be true that the classical theory of gravity is slightly off. Or rather, it can't really be explained by a force. Think of it. We are taught that light is the fastest particle in the universe. Okay, they now theorize tachyons, but anyway, for gravity the force would have to be instantaneous, so that an object entering our solar system would be instantaneously acted upon by the gravity of our sun. The force to do that would no longer be just faster than the speed of light, but instant, meaning no time between some mysterious 'particle' or 'force' of gravity leaving the sun to the time it comes into contact with an object an pulls it. One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space. Every object curves space-time to some degree, so that the greater the curve, closer to a large body of mass, the greater the gravity. Also, the greater the curve would effect time more. Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments. What does everyone think about that? Not exactly 'Intelligent Falling' but not exactly a 'force' of gravity, either. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!
bugDanny wrote:
Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments.
I hate to be pedantic but this is incorrect. I have a degree in physics and it drives me nutts to see something as important as General Relativity being misrepresented. There is no such thing as 'Zero G.' Classic Newtonian as well as Relativistic Gravation has shown that gravity extends to infinite distances while the 'strength' of that interaction diminishes greatly over distanc. What you are thinking about is actually called micro gravity.
bugDanny wrote:
One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
You have got it backwards here. Space is curved due to gravatitional forces.
bugDanny wrote:
'force' of gravity, either.
Uhh yes it is. You really need to pick up a physics book. General Relativity does not do away with gravational forces but rather explains them within new limits. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
I didn't write that.
Oops :) Sorry :rose: Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
bugDanny wrote:
Did you know time goes faster in gravity that in zero-G? (I think it was that way, but it could be vice-versa) This has been proven in experiments.
I hate to be pedantic but this is incorrect. I have a degree in physics and it drives me nutts to see something as important as General Relativity being misrepresented. There is no such thing as 'Zero G.' Classic Newtonian as well as Relativistic Gravation has shown that gravity extends to infinite distances while the 'strength' of that interaction diminishes greatly over distanc. What you are thinking about is actually called micro gravity.
bugDanny wrote:
One theory out there is that gravity might not necessarily be a 'force', but rather the result of curved space.
You have got it backwards here. Space is curved due to gravatitional forces.
bugDanny wrote:
'force' of gravity, either.
Uhh yes it is. You really need to pick up a physics book. General Relativity does not do away with gravational forces but rather explains them within new limits. Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
Chris Austin wrote:
There is no such thing as 'Zero G.'
Forgive me. Yes, I think you're right. And time goes slower in higher gravity. I wasn't trying to make a point about 'Zero G', but about how gravity affects time.
Chris Austin wrote:
You really need to pick up a physics book.
Thanks for the insult. I realize what I posted doesn't exactly fall into the physics book.
Chris Austin wrote:
General Relativity does not do away with gravational forces but rather explains them within new limits.
Reread my post. I don't believe I said "General Relativity". I was reiterating another theory that mass curves space-time and it's this curvature that we observe as gravity. You like to contradict my post saying, "No, you're wrong, this is how this theory says it is." But my post was, "This is how a different theory says it could be", which maybe could even be incorporated in General Relativity. I've studied General and Special Relativity, too. I, too, like to use it and explain it to make myself appear smarter to others. Danny The stupidity of others amazes me!