Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Up to 70% off Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop Amazon Fire TV Shop now Shop Fire HD 6 Shop Kindle Voyage Shop now Shop Now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Fath is not a virtue


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 184 posts in this discussion
Posted on 23 Feb 2013 07:23:03 GMT
easytiger says:
Gravity, theoretically, is a constant rate of acceleration, 9.81m/s/s. Combined with mass it becomes a force ma or mg. If you take the equations derived from Newton's laws of motion and replace a with g, the equations work. With quantum physics neither work. Which is why today the 'missing link' isn't a Piltdown Man, it's why are there different laws for big things and small things. If you can find the answer, you will be bigger than Einstein.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 12:37:21 GMT
Spin,

So you agree then that "gravity" is a phenomenon/phenomena which causes you to experience something which is called "gravity"?
If you experience something and then give it a name then it exists, regardless of whether you know what causes it, because you CAN experience it.
It doesn't matter what "gravity" is - it exists because it affects things.
Your answer does not negate the existence of gravity, rather you dispute what it is.
So the question remains:
How can I experience something that doesn't exist?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 13:13:13 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Feb 2013 13:16:03 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 13:45:07 GMT
gtL,

" So how much faith can we put in physics? Should'nt we just stick to simple engineering? "

Why not? After all, engineering doesn't require physics or maths, because its all guesswork.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 13:47:15 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Hi Rev- "Simple Engineering" so speaks someone who knows Sweet F.A. about engineering!

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 13:50:00 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 13:57:14 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 14:50:26 GMT
gtL,

"So, in this context, human measurements in physics are only ever going to be very rough estimations; only subjectively given any value."
"simple engineering does not require an elaborate physics industry, since the physics for it is already laid out. Is it not? "

I confess. I don't know what you are on about. And I don't think you do either.
So human measurements are rough estimations in physics. That's why engineers can knock up a skyscraper roughly because there are no physics involved or accurate measurements? WHat do you mean by "the physics is already laid out for it"? You don't make sense. You can't say physics is subjective and objective at the same time.

"So how much faith can we put in physics?"

None. It doesn't require "faith" because it is evidenced.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 19:10:07 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Feb 2013 19:36:54 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 23 Feb 2013 19:30:55 GMT
Last edited by the author on 23 Feb 2013 19:35:53 GMT
J. Forbes says:
GTL, I am afraid you are talking nonsense again.

The Twin Towers were constructed on very sound principles. Every building ever constructed will fail if you drop a nuclear bomb on it, or if it is hit by a tidal wave 200 metres high.

in other words, when we build a building we do so knowing that it would not withstand a really remarkable event, such as happened to the Twin Towers. They failed not because of any miscalculation or bad design. If you recall, they both survived the impact of large aeroplanes hitting them at high speed.

What brought them down was the tremendous heat of the fire that engulfed them when the fuel tanks exploded, and which melted the steel that was reinforcing the concrete. No building could withstand such heat.

No car is uncrashable, no ship unsinkable, no building indestructible. We know this, and we accept the small risk (very small in the case of the TTs) that the once in a hundred lifetimes event will happen.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 19:39:41 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 23 Feb 2013 19:43:32 GMT
J. Forbes says:
GTL, you probably know something about beer, or football. If you stick to those there is a chance you won't make a fool of yourself.

If you think that the laws of physics may change with scale, wouldn't it be a good idea to keep studying the subject, rather than give up as you propose?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 20:37:39 GMT
gtL,

"For instance the twin towers did not stand, because they were built upon a certain delicate physical guesstimate."

No. They did not stand because some deluded nutcases flew planes into them. Nothing to do with a failure of physics.

" if it is true that physical laws change with scale."

They don't.

"It was just questioning how reliable the so-called laws are, since at either side of that given scale, they change. "

They don't. They are reliable.

"In short, in the same way I'm punching above my weight talking about physics."

From what you have written, you know absolutely nothing about physics. It is unintelligible garbage.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 20:39:38 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 20:40:51 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 20:58:41 GMT
Give me an example of where physics changes with scale.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 21:01:10 GMT
How what feels?

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 21:18:02 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Feb 2013 21:20:24 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 19:45:43 GMT
Last edited by the author on 24 Feb 2013 19:46:54 GMT
It actually says in the Koran that writhing around on the ground is not an act of repentance, therefore St Paul's so-called conversion on the Road to Damascus has to be viewed with suspicion, especially in front of an audience, the usual way of a hysteric. Also his attitude to female authority, being unable to accept it, has to be typical of a mother-fixated anorexic. My own view of the episode concerning the unfortunate slave Onsimus, who is spotted whilst escaping during a release under guard on Paul's part from prison, makes me suspect repressed homosexuality. Really, why do we have to put up with this character at all in our culture?

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 19:50:51 GMT
Bellatori says:
C. E. Statham says: "the usual way of a hysteric."

If he was in a state of religious fervour and angst over previous misdemeanours then he could have had a 'vision' similar in cause to that at Fatima in Portugal (or Pius XII in the Papal garden come to that.).

He then gets a bad case of repentance and starts a religion amongst the gentiles. Christianity is in reality really Paulinism.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 20:09:13 GMT
Well, yes, angst being the operative word here. But the Fatima case involved children, so a bit different and I don't think anyone has built a religion on that in itself.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 20:09:54 GMT
Paul's a hysterical, anorexic, homosexual Oedipus ?
I'm lost ... I thought we were talking about gravity lolol

Posted on 24 Feb 2013 20:10:07 GMT
And there are still a lot of Paul/Saul's around.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Feb 2013 20:14:24 GMT
Bellatori says:
No but as Pope Pius XII discovered, if you stare at the sun in a state of religious ecstasy you can start to see visions and that is exactly what happened at Fatima. The description of Paul on the road to Tarsus suggests something similar.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  26
Total posts:  184
Initial post:  21 Feb 2013
Latest post:  27 Feb 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions