Did Biblical events really exist?

[kal-el]

Yes an opinion backed by facts. :lol:

Yours is merely just against supernatural beleifs which is full of opinions too. That doesn have any facts.

Please, you put to much stock in a book written by man.Alot of people think the Bible is a collection of fairy stories, or mythology. See, that's an opinion to.:smile:

 

[SKILMATIC]

Please, you put to much stock in a book written by man.Alot of people think the Bible is a collection of fairy stories, or mythology. See, that's an opinion to.

Alot of people beleived that slavery was a good thing too. Is that your whole argument?

 

[steen]

Correct, I'm not saying that stopping the earth's rotation,would not violate natural laws. I just think anything is possible.

That is, other than the possibility of stopping the Earth's rotation.

I don't believe that man is the"Alpha" or "top dog" of the universe.

Well, we wouldn't know. That's up for speculation, so you are not wrong, whichever position you take on that. It all depends on how evolution has progressed elsewhere.

 

[Thinker]

All crap again, but if you wish to continue ...

I'm still waiting for your response to my post so that we can discover who
was talking crap on that point, and move on to the next.

 

[MrFungus420]

Nazareth did exist, it is currently existing today. http://www.nazareth.muni.il/home.html

I find it interesting that the "History" link for Nazareth doesn't exist. I'd think that for such an important city, the history would be one of the first things that they'd have...

 

[kal-el]

Alot of people beleived that slavery was a good thing too. Is that your whole argument?

Are you saying the majority is right? Copernicus was burned alive by the Vatican for saying that the Earth wasn't flat. And the minority,Copernicus, turned out to be right!

 

[Thinker]

Are you saying the majority is right? Copernicus was burned alive by the Vatican for saying that the Earth wasn't flat. And the minority,Copernicus, turned out to be right!

No he wasn't, and no he didn't.

Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) described a heliocentric model of the solar system
and died of natural causes.

Perhaps you are confusing him with Bruno, who was burned for claiming there
were other inhabited worlds in the universe.

Very few educated people ever believed the Earth was flat.

 

[kal-el]

No he wasn't, and no he didn't.

Copernicus (Mikolaj Kopernik) described a heliocentric model of the solar system
and died of natural causes.

Perhaps you are confusing him with Bruno, who was burned for claiming there
were other inhabited worlds in the universe.

Very few educated people ever believed the Earth was flat.

You're right, my apologies. Yea I mean Giordrno Bruno was burned alive as a heteric for claiming their was other inhabited planets out there. Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[Thinker]

You're right, my apologies.

No need. We all make mistakes.

 

[DonRicardo]

s you did not give a simple yes or no answer, I'll need to check exactly
what you mean. You seem to be saying both that you agree I have not
changed the meaning of your words and that you wish to clarify them by
changing "create" into "convert". It seems then, that you accept you meant:

"When planets are moving they lose mass and convert energy."

Yes.

I take this as agreement.

Indeed.

Mass: A property of matter equal to the measure of an object's resistance to
changes in either the speed or direction of its motion. The mass of an object
is not dependent on gravity and therefore is different from but proportional to
its weight.

Weight: The force with which a body is attracted to Earth or another
celestial body, equal to the product of the object's mass and the
acceleration of gravity.

With mass I meant non-energy matter. Maybe I should have used matter instead. Matter is converted to energy.

I meant that all of the matter that is no energy (which I call mass, I can't find any other word) is being converted to energy.

Examples of non-energy matter are rocks, planets, etc ... They will convert some of those materials to energy.

I did not mean mass as any of your above definitions. I hope it's clear now.

To summarise, I believe you have responded as follows:

Question 1: Do you agree that by simplifying your words I have not changed
their meaning? You agree.

Yes, I agree, but I wasn't complete myself. To create in physics cannot exist. That's why I should have used "convert" to avoid misunderstanding.

Question 2: Do you agree that a moving object maintains its mass and energy
unless an external force is brought in? You agree.

Yes.

Question 3: Do you agree that accelerating an object increases its energy?
You agree.

Yes.

Question 4: Do you agree that the mass of an object increases as its speed
increases? You do not agree.

Indeed, I did not agree.

Please let me know if this is correct (bearing in mind your confusion over
mass and weight; we are talking about mass, not weight).

I never confused matter with weight. I gave the example "a flying bird". With mass I meant non-energy matter. Matter will be converted to energy, while mass (the property of matter of an object equal to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion.) remains equal.

 

[DonRicardo]

Correct, I'm not saying that stopping the earth's rotation,would not violate natural laws.

Even better. Violating the laws of nature is quite impossible. "Supernaturality" would be beyond perception, while "super-nature" would have no laws. It would be chaos.

I just think anything is possible.

Well, you're wrong. If anything is possible, how come you can only make ONE decision at one time. Time is a flat straight line and there is only one possibility, because each period of time happens only once. Hence, there is no choice. Existance is possibility and there is only one truth. This makes me remind of Aristotle's flawed metaphysics.

I don't believe that man is the"Alpha" or "top dog" of the universe.

Well, we are quite exceptional aren't we? Compare our human race to all other animals, considering there are millions of kinds of insects already.

Do you have any idea what kind of events are needed to cause intelligence as ours? Not even a chimp who has 99.9% ressemblence in genes is a match for our intelligence.

AS time stretches infinite far and there might be multiple universi, I do not exclude it. But I think we are the most intelligent in THIS universe and I hold this belief, until I get an observation.

Yes an opinion backed by facts.

The Bible is not based upon facts. It's gossip. There is NO SINGLE OBSERVATION or LOGICAL SUGGESTION that supports the a single event in the Bible. Science does have plenty suggestions and observations.

Isn't the base of evidence an observation? Consider a court where a murderer is being judged. Would you let someone be condamned to death by only hearsay/gossip or would you rather trust aliby and other evidence?

That's why religion fails, my friend.

The only validity of the Bible are its moral values, which are even at some points flawed, such as Jesus's crucification. It is not moral to let one pay for another's sins.

Yours is merely just against supernatural beleifs which is full of opinions too. That doesn have any facts.

Seeing is believing. As long as no example of supernaturality has occured, I reject it, which is quite logical after all. Reconsider the "court" example.

Kal-el's meaning was based upon logical suggestions, while yours is based upon gossip (Bible).

 

[Old and wise]

The Great Flood, Noah's Ark. Fall of Babylon. Goliath. Ummmm.....what else . ... Jesus Christ. Is there evidence of events written in the Bible existing today?

Nope, the bible is pure fiction.

 

[leejosepho]

Is there evidence of events written in the Bible existing today?

Yes, the Hebrew people and their witness of Sinai.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/G-dAtSinai.htm

 

[kal-el]

Hey SKILMATIC, why don't you do us a favor and bless us wih your knowledge on creationalism? You said evolution is just a theory, I'm not disagreeing with you, but enlighten us with some facts to discount evolution. I know you said that before, like you said to Ban, don't make me dig up your old posts!:smile:

 

[steen]

You mean that skilmatics has something else than "goddidit," or "Because evolution is what it really isn't, it is wrong"? That WOULD be highly entertaining.:lol:

 

[Thinker]

I never confused matter with weight. I gave the example
"a flying bird". With mass I meant non-energy matter. Matter will be
converted to energy, while mass (the property of matter of an object equal
to the measure of an object's resistance to changes in either the speed
or direction of its motion.) remains equal.

Yet again you have introduced something that needs to be clarified before
we can proceed.

First, they were not my definitions of mass and weight; they are
the standard definitions used in Physics. If you think I have got them
wrong in some way, please provide a correction.

You say: "With mass I meant non-energy matter". Changing the word "mass"
to "matter" doesn't alter anything. You are either inventing a new
concept that does not exist in physics as I know it or you are referring
to an accepted concept. If this is an invention of your own, please give
a formal definition of what you mean (not an example). If it is an
accepted concept, please provide references to its definition in the
standard literature. However, as you make it clear in your subsequent
statement, you are actually talking about the standard physics definition
of mass, so this confusion is not particularly important.

Second, you make another complex statement which I shall attempt to
simplify. My question was: "Do you agree that the mass of an object
increases as its speed increases?"

You disagreed, saying: "Matter will be converted to energy, while mass
(the property of matter of an object equal to the measure of an object's
resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion.)
remains equal."

The statement is in two independent parts. I shall remove the first
part as this does not change the meaning of the second part: "mass
(the property of matter of an object equal to the measure of an object's
resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion.)
remains equal."

I assume by "remains equal" you mean "does not change [as the speed of
the object increases]". As you have given the definition of mass here, you
are being clear that you mean the standard definition from Physics; you
are clearly not talking about your private definition of matter.
So, your statement reduces to: "mass does not change as the speed of the
object increases". Do you agree?

 

[kal-el]

You mean that skilmatics has something else than "goddidit," or "Because evolution is what it really isn't, it is wrong"? That WOULD be highly entertaining.:lol:

I myself have been presented with enough facts to support evolution by you, and others, for that matter, I beleive it, but like I said, I don't believe it was random. Anyway, am I wrong here, or did Skilly say he can puch many holes in the evolution theory? I for one, would be very interested in hearing his side.

 

[DonRicardo]

First, they were not my definitions of mass and weight; they are
the standard definitions used in Physics. If you think I have got them
wrong in some way, please provide a correction.

I don't think they're wrong.

You say: "With mass I meant non-energy matter". Changing the word "mass"
to "matter" doesn't alter anything. You are either inventing a new
concept that does not exist in physics as I know it or you are referring
to an accepted concept. If this is an invention of your own, please give
a formal definition of what you mean (not an example). If it is an
accepted concept, please provide references to its definition in the
standard literature. However, as you make it clear in your subsequent
statement, you are actually talking about the standard physics definition
of mass, so this confusion is not particularly important.

-- Matter is the number of particles of which an object consists. It can be expressed by measuring the number of atoms.

-- Non-energy matter is the number of particles (atoms) of which an object exists, eliminating those that are energy-particles (p.e. light-atoms).

My body can convert fat cells to thermal energy, which resides within my body. If I think, as an example, my brains need energy as well. The total mass of my body remains the same, but I will have less non-energy matter and more energy-matter, because some fat cells were converted to energy.

If I run, my body burns fat, converting non thermal energy (fat cells) to heat. The mass remains equal, unless the thermal energy leaves the body.

THus movement causes a conversion from non-energy matter to energy matter. The higher the movement the higher the conversion.

Second, you make another complex statement which I shall attempt to
simplify. My question was: "Do you agree that the mass of an object
increases as its speed increases?"

You disagreed, saying: "Matter will be converted to energy, while mass
(the property of matter of an object equal to the measure of an object's
resistance to changes in either the speed or direction of its motion.)
remains equal."

Yes, I disagreed. Mass cannot increase unless there is a composition with other objects.

If I eat as an example, I will get more mass. I don't see how an object can get more mass by moving.

I assume by "remains equal" you mean "does not change [as the speed of
the object increases]". As you have given the definition of mass here, you
are being clear that you mean the standard definition from Physics; you
are clearly not talking about your private definition of matter.
So, your statement reduces to: "mass does not change as the speed of the
object increases". Do you agree?

Yes.

 

[Thinker]

I shall discuss your other points in a separate message.

Yes.

This was in response to: 'So, your statement reduces to: "mass does not
change as the speed of the object increases". Do you agree?'

You have now agreed that you believe that mass does not change as the
speed of the objects increases.

I invite you to look at a simple description of Einstein's work:
http://home.earthlink.net/~kstengel226/sci_tech/einstein.html

where you will find:

Another one of Einstein’s results (and one of the things that makes
Special Relativity so hard to understand) is that the mass of an object
increases with velocity. The increase isn’t noticeable until the velocity is a
large fraction of the speed of light, and the mass goes to infinity as the
velocity approaches the speed of light. This is one reason why
faster-than-light speeds are believed to be impossible. The equation:
m = mo/sqrt(1 - v2/c2) where I am denoting the square root of 1 - v2/c2 by
sqrt(1 - v2/c2), since I don’t have the square root symbol handy. What this
tells us is that, given an object with mass mo at rest, the actual mass m
increases with velocity in the manner shown.

 

[Thinker]

-- Matter is the number of particles of which an object consists. It can be expressed by measuring the number of atoms.
-- Non-energy matter is the number of particles (atoms) of which an object exists, eliminating those that are energy-particles (p.e. light-atoms).

So you are saying that matter is the number of atoms in an object. I
will accept your definition for the purposes of discussion.

Then you define "non-energy matter" as the number of atoms minus
"light-atoms"?

I think I know what atoms are, but please define what you mean by a
"light-atom"; I have never heard of the term, except to mean atoms (ordinary
atoms from your definition of "matter") with low atomic weights, like Carbon,
or Lithium.

To prevent confusion, it would be best if you provided references to
published work defining these terms, or are they your inventions?

My body can convert fat cells to thermal energy, which resides within my body. If I think, as an example, my brains need energy as well. The total mass of my body remains the same, but I will have less non-energy matter and more energy-matter, because some fat cells were converted to energy.

Here you seem to be suggesting that metabolism of fat changes the amount
of "non-energy matter" (i.e., atoms, according to your definition) involved.
Fat is metabolised by chemical reactions, not nuclear reactions!

 

[DonRicardo]

So you are saying that matter is the number of atoms in an object. I
will accept your definition for the purposes of discussion.

I'm not a physics, neither a chemics expert, but I definitely think it is a correct definition. Mass is the whole of particles.

I think I know what atoms are, but please define what you mean by a
"light-atom"; I have never heard of the term, except to mean atoms (ordinary
atoms from your definition of "matter") with low atomic weights, like Carbon,
or Lithium.

Light-atom is not a defined term. I use to refer to each atom within a light-molecule. Because I didn't know the composition of a molecule within light-energy, hence I used the word "light-atom".

Here you seem to be suggesting that metabolism of fat changes the amount
of "non-energy matter" (i.e., atoms, according to your definition) involved.
Fat is metabolised by chemical reactions, not nuclear reactions!

Every action is a chemical reaction. If an atom's content is being altered, it is in fact a chemical reaction, because chemistry is nothing but the study of particles, their conversions and reacions.

A nucleair reaction is a chemical reaction.

 

[Thinker]

So you are saying that matter is the number of atoms in an object. I will accept your definition for the purposes of discussion.

The board managed to post my message before I had finished editing it. The
section quoted above should have read:

So you are saying that matter is the number of atoms in an object. I will accept
your definition for the purposes of discussion in this posting, but note that it
has nothing to do with our previous discussion about mass. According to your
definition, an atom of hydrogen and an atom of uranium have the same amount
of matter (1 atom each). I think you would agree that their masses are very
different.

 

[DonRicardo]

I shall discuss your other points in a separate message.



This was in response to: 'So, your statement reduces to: "mass does not
change as the speed of the object increases". Do you agree?'

You have now agreed that you believe that mass does not change as the
speed of the objects increases.

I invite you to look at a simple description of Einstein's work:
http://home.earthlink.net/~kstengel226/sci_tech/einstein.html

where you will find:

Well indeed, I was wrong.

The author, neither you, can possibly give an explanation for this. I too, as the author, find it very strange that mass increases.

This seems to twarth logic. Considering that an object can increase its mass, is practically the same as stating that something can come out of nothing. Or would it be because the object increasing its speed interacts with the environment?

 

[Thinker]

I'm not a physics, neither a chemics expert, but I definitely think it is a correct definition. Mass is the whole of particles.

If you were correct then the mass of a hydrogen atom would be the same as
the mass of a uranium atom. This is clearly nonsense.

Light-atom is not a defined term. I use to refer to each atom within a
light-molecule. Because I didn't know the composition of a molecule within
light-energy, hence I used the word "light-atom".

You keep inventing terms that have no meaning and using them in sentences
that also have no meaning. What is a "light-molecule"? Do you mean a photon? That isn't an atom!

Every action is a chemical reaction. If an atom's content is being altered, it is in fact a chemical reaction, because chemistry is nothing but the study of particles, their conversions and reacions.

A nucleair reaction is a chemical reaction.

After some research, I find that some definitions of chemical reactions include
nuclear reactions. So I grant that particular point. However, the reactions
involved in generating energy from fat do not change the number of atoms
involved. As a simple example, two hydrogen molecules (four atoms) combine
with one oxygen molecule (two atoms) to create two molecules of water (six
atoms) and release energy. No atoms have been created or destroyed, but
there is a release of energy.

Do you agree now that your claim that the number of atoms changes when
you metabolise fat was nonsense?

 

[Thinker]

Well indeed, I was wrong.

Thank you for admitting that. I would hope that you can now also retract
your statement that my comments were: "All crap again"

The author, neither you, can possibly give an explanation for this. I too, as the author, find it very strange that mass increases.

This seems to twarth logic. Considering that an object can increase its mass, is practically the same as stating that something can come out of nothing. Or would it be because the object increasing its speed interacts with the environment?

Many of the concepts in relativity (special, and particularly general) seem
bizarre.

One (highly simplified) way of thinking about the increase in mass is to note
that, according to Einstein, mass and energy are interconvertible:
e = mc**2. As you apply energy to accelerate an object, some of that
energy increases the speed of the object but some of it is converted into
more mass within the object. The total mass-energy of the system is always
equal to the rest mass-energy plus the energy put in by the accelerating
force, so you aren't getting something for nothing.