₦airaland Forum

Chibuebem: see as you just dey disgrace wiegraf

indeed

Uyi Iredia: Nothing is immutable, infinite, non-contingent and eternal. Those are 3 attributes that logically follow from it. If space-time is nothing substatiate it.



Apropos, since you are too perplexed to apprehend what I write



The article talks of differences in gravitational force. In any case, Einstein proposed differences in gravity is due to the distortion of space by different masses. That explains nothing about how the motion of planets kickstarted and involves an absurdity, a greater absurdity of treating space as a physical object, it isn't.



Making things up eh ? Not that you're smart enough, you did unthinkingly swallow what other physicists untcritically swallowed.
Space does not stretch. Space is absolute and doesn't stretch. Your proposition is shown more absurd becaise stretching demands space wherein one can stretch into. Stretching of space means space is a physically, empirically verifiable object. Bottomline: Space is nothing and as such does not stretch.



*snorts*

Bros, che. Again, over your head. There's absolutely nothing special about deducing special relativity from simple premises. Once it's pointed out to you, especially that the speed of light remains constant to everyone regardless of speed, nothing at all.

Again, you just happen to be fairly eediotic and will likely never be able to grasp it, so you imagine it some tremendous mental feat. I'm not speaking of the math or the more unitintuitive gr mind you, but that would make little difference considering you.

And since you never will get it, you demonstrate why this is a waste of time. Well, I always knew that, was just having fun.

Delude yourself. You know more about spacetime than then the scientific community and, considering the fact that its been confirmed time and again objectively, reality doesn't seem to matter. Practice your delusions, use your will and whargarbl to make it so, eventually you'll create your very own imaginary friend to make you feel oh so special.

But don't go too far abrg, even in 9ja, the odd religious nut finds himself in asylum

italo: Everyone is making up their own rules, including you. It isnt me that made it so.

Why should everyone follow your rules on logic?

Why should you be the one to define logic for the world?

You didn't make 1+1=2

Alfa Seltzer: That is not a triangle. Since when does triangles have pregnant sides?

You might as well call this a square:

https://www.sweetdreamsquiltstudio.com/images/curved%20square%20001.jpg

Depending on the surface, that could be a square. Straight lines on a mountain/cone for instance could produce something similar I would think. Mathmagicians familiar with topology should be able to show better. You're some sort of engineer, no?

Just as orbits are actually straight lines, but of course from our perspective they're spheres

aManFromMars: That reminds me...

@Uyi, does gravity exist in our minds?

We might not require anony afterall....

aManFromMars: But lb would be willing to do so..,

Lol

This thread requires anony

texanomaly: thank you for using the word theory.

And you likely don't know what a scientific theory is.

Deny gravity because it's a theory as well, your prerogative, just don't expect to be taken seriously

aManFromMars: After 2+2=4, you began to sound like Uyi. Smh.

Hehe. But it depends on the sort of logic we speak of. In many situations he would be correct. Probably this particular one as well, but i'm not so willing to do gymnastics atm

texanomaly: Bahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahabahahahabahah
Wow...ok Mr. Spock...sorry...It had to be said...btw evolution is not a universally proven fact. Not all scientists accept it as such.

As far as the scientific community is concerned it is well accepted as a fact. Your assertion holds if you're fine with statements like; 'gravity is not a universal proven fact. Not all scientists accept it as such'. Else, no

There are dissenters with every theory, that's how science works. Because of the nature of the topic, folk inflate/focus on the views of dissenters to make it seem like their case has more weight than it actually does. That does affect the fact that it is overwhemingly supported by the scientific community.

And yes, frankly, anyone familiar with the topic (esp the pros involved across the various disciplines) who still holds it does not occur is likely being very irrational, and objectively (or very close to) wrong

Chrisbenogor: I would believe a simple miracle

Draw a triangle that has angles more than 180 degrees inside.

Kay 17: That would be a fantastic example of a miracle.

http://nrich.maths.org/1434

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Triangles_%28spherical_geometry%29.jpg/350px-Triangles_%28spherical_geometry%29.jpg

Welcome to non-euclidian geometry. How many more before riemann et al are qualified to become saints?

You must now believe in miracles, btw..

Uyi Iredia: Sure, God telekinesis is the final cause which need not be accounted for. The secondary cause which you would pander more to is, as suggessted by the article lesser gravitational force at a point in space (the region just above the earth's atmosphere) than on earth. Of course, my pount is in harmony with that since I said time-lag between different for has to be accounted for, which this article points out the cause is differing magnitudes of gravity. No need to kill logic and bend nothing, bending strictly applies to materials and space is that last concept to stretch bending to.



Sure. Folly is in-built. We got it from our consciousness.

Eejit, as has been pointed out to you time and again, spacetime isn't nothing. Nothing, for one, wouldn't have any properties, eg dimensions like length or time. Once it does, once you can measure it, then it's something. Or what did you just measure, nothing??....

IIRC you yourself have been asking how nothing can have something?? Then again, your drivel is, needless to say, nonsense, so I'm not sure what you're railing about.

Basic. Very basic abc, the time lag is a result of spacetime having different properties dependent on reference frames......

Very basic, your nonsense does not in any way hide the fact that spacetime itself has to stretch in order to accommodate the constant speed of light, making its properties differ from point to point. Even simple thought experiments show this, no need to get into the math. And all the experiments confirm this, time and again.....

Kayi

Uyi Iredia: Sure, I don't need Einstein to tell me GPS need to be coordinated and timelag between different points accounted for.

As usual, you persist with matters clearly beyond your capabilities.

They aren't accounting for differences because of say movement across timezones. An hour there is not an hour here, can you grasp that? Both clocks will say an hour has passed locally, but when you synch them, it will not be so? Try your besteseteststes. If you do I'll let you play with crayons...

http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/08apr_atomicclock/

NASA: According to Einstein's theory of gravity and space-time -- called "general relativity" -- clocks in strong gravity tick slower than clocks in weak gravity. Because gravity is weaker on the ISS than at Earth's surface, PARCS should accumulate an extra second every 10,000 years compared to clocks ticking on the planet below. PARCS won't be there that long, but the clock is so stable that it will reveal this effect in less than one year. (Strayer notes that clocks on GPS satellites experience this relativistic phenomenon, too, and that onboard systems must correct for it.)

"Putting atomic clocks in orbit is a good way to test general relativity," says Maleki. "General relativity has passed every test so far, but no theory is perfect -- not even Einstein's. Eventually, as we extend the precision of our experiments, we expect to find flaws in it, and that will dramatically change what we know about the nature of the Universe."


The stretching of time by relativity has been felt and measured by other orbiting clocks -- GPS, for example -- but PARCS will measure the effect with errors one hundred times smaller than its predecessors did. Furthermore, PARCS will test technologies to be used in a next-generation clock named RACE slated for installation on the ISS in 2006. Stable within 1 part in 1017, RACE will keep time so well that if it ran for three billion years it would lose less than 1 second.

Or is NASA now making $hit up? So please, explain what causes time dilation. Again, telekinesis?

Kayi, humanity...so foo.lish...

italo: Firstly, going by your definition of "foolish," there are billions that would describe you and Logicboy as foolish.

You're still playing with words and false dichotomies. Anyone who thinks I am foo.lish for stating that the guy who jumped in front of the truck was foo.lish, is foo.lish, undeniably so. Considering the objective is clear, the solution glaring, and the actual solution chosen completely counter productive and backed by silly reasoning, our jumper was clearly foo.lish. There are no ambiguous axioms involved in this situation, unlike the picture you're trying to paint. This particular situation is like saying false is true, or 1 + 1 = 3. Simple.

However, you're close to my argument. Consciousness relies on emotions to set goals, emotions are not necessarily rational. So undoubtedly, I've relied on foo.lish notions at one time or the other to set/achieve goals. With god being the perfect consciousness, and consciousness being intrinsically foo.lish, then god is the perfection of folly, no?

italo: Secondly, are you saying everyone should follow your own rules?

No, I'm saying going by your definition, everyone makes up their own rules.

italo: I didnt say "who created logic?"

I said "who DEFINES logic?"

Logicboy thinks logic means we should believe macro evolution; Mazaje thinks logic means we shouldnt necessarily do so.

Who has the authority to decide who is right/wrong?

Muskeeto thinks logic means it is unreasonable to assert that God doesnt exist because you havent perceived him. You think logic means its reasonable.

Who decides who is right/wrong about logic?

ME: Logic. Look up the meaning of the word foo.lish, it's fairly simple. Currently mobile, can't bothered.

Googlod: fool·ish
/ˈfo͞oliSH/
Adjective

(of a person or action) Lacking good sense or judgment; unwise.
Silly; ridiculous: "he'd been made to look foolish".

Synonyms
fatuous - daft - absurd - crazy - senseless - idiotic

ME, and not long ago, then you'll spout nonsense about my repeating myself or something similar. What do you expect??:
This isn't subjective, holding a false premise that's patently false (and may even harm you) is foo:lish, simple.

Basically, lb is already on it. You're more or else equating different situations for one. This is simple logic, of the mathematic sort, not whatever you're on about. Objective. Not even sure what you're on about.

If your aim is to cross a road, you value that and that is your aim, and instead of simply crossing when the road is clear you deliberately wait for a truck moving at speed passes by then jump in front of it, as you calculated that the impact would fling you across the road and thus fulfill your purpose, then well, you're foo.lish. Unless, of course, your aim was to reach the other side dead or something similar, see?


And in case you missed it

Would you look at that, me..again..:
And even if you were indulged, a big if, making it subjective changes nothing. He'd still qualify as the perfect foo:lish to some regardless, just as he remains the perfect bad to many

Making logic relative simply means anyone can make his rules.

Uyi Iredia: I see. Proof. Of course Wikipedia articles is the nonsense you'll present because only matter bends and the term 'bend' isnmeaningles wrt space and time.



Okay.



Light bends, not space. That's nonsense.



I see. Scientists do make things up as they go along. And given sciencestruck folks lile you, they do it with more bold these days, which accounts for the nonsense up there.



They don't explain how the earth circles the sun.



Dullard really. Matter is meaningless without consciousness.



You need consciousness to know there is a physical at all.



The kind airheads like you wouldn't know.

You want to create a god so badly you've redefined relativity, tested and confirmed various times, worked on by many of the finest minds that have ever lived, to mean just light bends and not spacetime itself? Because you say so (or is it because "matter is meaningless without conciousness"? ). To top this, you do this after acknowledging that relativistic effects are observed in satellite systems. Just what in the world registered in your mind after reading that?

Ok then, good ser genius, please tell me why relativistic effects can be observed, and indeed are accounted for, exactly as predicted by relativity which is built around the bending of spacetime and not photons/light, in satellites? What causes time dilation? Is it GOD??!! via telekinesis or telepathy, yes?


To add to that; seems you still think bosons don't exist, despite you using them right now to view this post; fail to understand the meaning of 'hypothesis'; think "matter is meaningless without conciousness" somehow translates to matter cannot exist without consciousness

You really need to stop all that reading if even basic stuff eludes you. You're just wasting your time, work on your reasoning, it requires a vast upgrade. Your CPU simply can't keep up with all that data.

I would hope you're trolling, but this seems to be genuine desperation and stoopidity. Faced with evidence, you still hold that spacetime doesn't bend. Because you say so. Religious blind faith and proud ignorance. This is what comes to mind when you claim you're an ex-xtian

https://pictures.mastermarf.com/blog/2010/100705-formerly-obese.jpg

italo: I dont get you.

Is it logic that defines logic or is it not?

Do you create mathematical truths?

italo: It is logic that defines logic?

Yet you accuse other people of circular reasoning!

Wise man, who defines logic?

Well, my humble one, math cannot describe math. That has never happened before. Math does not exist unless it is defined... I suppose by GOD??!!

greatgenius: no i am not. unless you didn't understand what i said..for instance i am not cherry picking if assert that matter or form is an illusion.. that which comes out of something else is an illusion..

When you say;

greatgenius: P/s let me add that the negative end or dark side is an illusion.. we "created" it for a reason..e.g there can be no smartest without its equally direct opposite the dumbest or most foolish..such a concept will not hold.. we created relativity from the beginning of time for a reason. TO EXPERIENCE.

You're cherry picking what's an illusion and what's not. As there's really no difference between smartest and dumbest, both are more or else (in this context) concepts. Though true, I may be misunderstanding you. You may be trying to say something about scales or degrees, and you might need to clarify for me. But even then, I don't think it will hold.

greatgenius: yea sort of you could say..i have been saying this in different ways since i joined this forum that all there is, is SELF. and noone or nothing else exist outside of us..there is only one of us and we(God) are all there is.. we are all representations or individuations of this SELF-The source. we are all projections of our HIGHER SELF(God).. like the cells in your body we are all playing our roles. The SELF(God) "created" all of this(life)from within(within because nothing else exist outise of itself so the only reference point is from within) in order to experience Self/itself.. we are all acting. you could say God(self) was bored out of his mind..

As usual, you say something that may be viable, but put it in such a way that makes it border on being whargarbl
Not criticism per se btw, you're well welcome to your views and interpretations, and who am I to say you're wrong, considering what you say put in another way could make sense (subjectively to me, ie).

That said, my own personal views on death, afterlife, immortality etc are solipsistic, but I wouldn't extend it beyond that without care, even if they may ostensibly hold philosophically (not physically, definitely).

Uyi Iredia: Yourself aptly described.




Who said that ?



So ? That doesn't mean time is material. If it is, post a picture of it, and so mock yourself.



I see. What does matter exist in: itself or space ? Since abstractions are immaterial, materialism is a no-brainer.



Without consciousness before and in it, the universe would exist or be known to exist, hence my idealism triumphs materialism.

Erm, the bending of space (and by extension, time) has been observed, time and again. Time dilation is observed in satellites for instance, without accounting for it GPS wouldn't work. What do you think the hoopla about observing the bending of light (rather spacetime) around the sun, einstein's prediction, was about? What's your excuse now, relativity doesn't exist because GOD??!!

One of the candidates (read; hypothesis) for dark energy/matter (I forget which, but I think energy) is that it's generated by space itself. Did you ever read up on bosons like I suggested? The field theories perhaps?

And again, meh. It matters not because nothing manifests without a physical base, and that's more or else the materialistic stance. You need the physical to be available before any sort of dimension can manifest, simple.

Also, wtf sort of uyism is the bolded?

aManFromMars: Lol, your sig?

Need to find a new 'most foo:lish comment in nairaland' to replace, but i may have seen it all...

Then again, we're undoubtably brilliantly foo:lish. I'll be proven wrong soon enough

Uyi Iredia: By saying, only the material exists consciousness, space and time don't exist since they are immaterial. Naïve materialism is self-defeating.

Read read read understand nothing.

Time can manifest without matter? Please show how. (You shouldn't even be using values like time, which can be measured/ascertained objectively, as an example....but meh)

As that's what materialism is; matter is the main ingredient, everything contingent on its existence, not the other way around, simple. It does not advocate the non existence of abstractions, that's silly

And i'm not a strict materialist as well, but for the vast majority of intents and purposes, this universe is materialistic

greatgenius: now it depends on what you mean by "everything"..you could say physicality is an illusion though...and i hope i dont confuse you with this.. but yes "everything" is an illusion. "NOTHING" is real. The only thing real is NOTHING. the only real "reality" is NOTHING..
it is from the "nothingness" that all things spring forth..The only thing real is consciousness..

once you understand the above you will know that everything(both seen and unseen-the something and the nothing) is not/cannot be an illusion. there must be (and there is) some reality otherwise the word "illusion" becomes nonsensical..

Then you're cherry picking what's real and what isn't

On another note, this is a bit like solipism, no?

italo: Who decides what is logical?

Atheists?

Logic. Look up the meaning of the word foo.lish, it's fairly simple. Currently mobile, can't bothered.

This isn't subjective, holding a false premise that's patently false (and may even harm you) is foo:lish, simple. There's good reason overly emotional people aren't allowed near certain positions; they tend to be foo:lish. These are the folk more likely to go with a false premise simply because it appeals to them, no surprise many are religious. (Tossing away pc, i'm looking at you, stereotypical women, though many dudes qualify as well, obviously, and not all women are unnecessarily irrational)

And even if you were indulged, a big if, making it subjective changes nothing. He'd still qualify as the perfect foo:lish to some regardless, just as he remains the perfect bad to many

greatgenius: ^^^ lol you and your anger sometimes .. of course God is the most foolish as well as the most smartest.. Does the saying the alpha and omega mean anything to you?..simply put THERE IS NOTHING THAT GOD IS NOT..she is all things. He is both the smallest and biggest as well as everything else in between.. he is the darkness and the light .. the "devil" and the angel . Love/hate.. I could go on and on but you get the drift..

The problem and confusion is that most people erroneously due to their limited awareness perceive and only attribute the positive end of the duality(good/bad) to God and not both.. And the "negative" end thus denoted as the "Devil".. But the truth is both are different extremes of the same thing - God

P/s let me add that the negative end or dark side is an illusion.. we "created" it for a reason..e.g there can be no smartest without its equally direct opposite the dumbest or most foolish..such a concept will not hold.. we created relativity from the beginning of time for a reason. TO EXPERIENCE.

This is obviously beyond them. They insist god is responsible for good only. Bad? No. Despite his creating everything....

.... And being omnipotent as well

Alpha and omega, as you say. This is whargarbl, but they still insist it's so.

It's fun watching those not afraid to face this fact address it, they become heretics. On this forum there's.obadiah (satan is god's partner) and okeyzxy (being xtian 'good' is hard and not secular 'good')

By your definitions in your ps, everything is an illusion

italo: No. I am asking you who decides what is foolish and what is wise.

Logic

italo: @satan, who decides who/what is foolish and what is wise. All Atheists or some of them?

This means god is subject to satan, a true master

It could also explain some of yahwehs psychosis

Theists, una fall my hand.

Okay, here's another proposition.


The number one difference, in a manner of speak, or ostensibly in a sense, or yadda yadda yadda, between humans and current computers is; humans can make mistakes. Humans can hold a proposition that are false for years as true, no problems whatsoever.

We can operate even when faced with problems a turing machine cannot solve, eg when faced with this infamous 'conundrum'

"This statement is false"

A human doesn't crash, we somehow just continue to operate. A computer, of course, cannot deal with such propositions per se. It can't give you a true, false, or definite scalar value as the answer. Of course, this is a simplification, but the point should be clear.

Now, holding a false proposition as true is indubitably....foo.lish. Look at religions built around blind faith for instance. As humans operate this way, we tend to be.....foo.lish.... very much so. Again, read theist threads to see what I mean.

Anyways, if god is supposed to be the perfect consciousness, replete with anthropomorphism, and consciousness is built around stoopidity, then god, by default, is the most stoopid being in existence. The perfect foo.lishness. Prove me wrong.

This can also be proven using the obvious; he's omnipotent, so obviously he's also the most foo.lish being in the universe (along with the smartest as well), but we can ignore that. So all the math adds up, see?

Reyginus: Bro, my post was hidden too. And like I said in the latter, if lb could calm down you will.

WHY?

Elxandre: How do you expect a man to generate new limbs?
I wrote clearly that you are not asked to question the existence of miracles. you are asked to explain how they occur.
Some of these miracles i'm talking had geniue real life witnesses.
A man born lame who got up and walked is as spectacular as a man growing new limbs because he generated new muscles, ligaments e.t.c.
**And why the childish insults?
If you have nothing constructive to say, you dont need to post.

How do I expect a man to grow a new limb? Wtf is a miracle? What foo.lishness is this? Is your omnipotent god incapable of something science will soon be fully capable of? You do know we can already grow organs like ears, lungs and pipis in labs, yes? You also know other forms of life can regenerate lost limbs, tails, tentacles etc? In fact, apparently there's a worm that can regenerate itself from a sigle cell? Or is your omniscient god unaware of all this? Miracles can't do that yet science can?

To top that, you expect to be taken seriously because of 'genuine, real life witnesses'. In other words; hearsay. Of sheeple....

Here's a list of psychiatric centers in the country. The sooner the better imo

www.ynaija.com/you-can-get-help-these-are-registered-mental-health-centres-in-nigeria-breakthesilence/

Erm, xtians, this can be addressed, yet I see very little of that...

Elxandre: stick to the topic please!

You probably should check a doc to see if you're re.tarded

How do you explain the fact that miracles, supposedly rare events, seem to be conspicuous only at tithe loving churches? And said chuches seem capable of 'miracles' only amongst sheeple?

How do you explain the fact that this miracle performing priests have never once say regenerated someone's limbs, let it be a born again person sef, objectively and in a scientific setting, where professionals can observe, investigate and document the results?

Or does god not care, does he only help people only in bogus situations and after they grovel and plead at his feet?

Bill gates is trying to get rid of malaria, an ailment that's safe to say will affect you, at a great personal cost to himself. In fact, you'll probably tell him he's going to hell simply because he doesn't believe donkeys can talk, and you'll also call him a foo.l simply because he's sane. He's doing the best he can with the resources he has. So, are you saying your loving omnipotent god, that has the power to achieve anything feasible, won't help limbless people until they beg and grovel and slave at his feet? And preferably, they should pay tithe?

Actually, long story short, how can you, supposedly equipped with a human brain capable of reason, believe this nonsense? How old are you, do you still believe in santa as well?