flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > predestination, fate.

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
my goodness what has become of this thread Laughing

Azu wrote:
There's a reason they call it "spacetime" and not "mattertime", "volumetime", "densitytime", or "masstime".

That's because it flows normally in empty space, and curved around matter! Not "doesn't flow in empty space, only flows around matter"..
I was talking about refined theories with the expansion of the Universe. Big Bang would be an extreme black hole (all matter concentrated in 1 point) so space would be distorted totally towards that "point".
Big Bang theory is that "1 point" suddenly expanding, not there being that 1 point.

Borsuc wrote:
Needless to say that time doesn't exist without matter (or distortion).
Needless to say it does exist without matter and distortion. Perfectly and uniformly. Just like space.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:04
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:47; edited 1 time in total
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
asmcoder wrote:
im a god, too bad without powers.
how can you be a God if you don't have powers? Razz

asmcoder wrote:
Universe is infinite.
but matter isn't.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:09
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
Quote:
asmcoder must be the next Messiah. Razz

im a god, too bad without powers.

Quote:
Big Bang theory is that "1 point" suddenly expanding, not there being that 1 point.

big bang was a rock falling into a lake causing disruption.
not 1 point. 1 point = perfection, grid, matrix. Universe is infinite.
Please stop offending my intelligence.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:12
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:47; edited 1 time in total
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
asmcoder wrote:
Quote:
how can you be a God if you don't have powers? Razz

there is no infinite power, so power isnt measurment of perfection.
you can measure range from center of universe (i mentioned it few posts above). im a closest thing to that, so im the closest thing to what you would call a god.

If this center of universe isnt true, then no matter what relativity experment would prove same fact.
Rolling Eyes




asmcoder wrote:
Quote:
but matter isn't.

matter = distortion in universe.
wave + another wave = matter, you can detect it or not.
but waves are no diffrent than matter.
No; wave = movement of mass and/or radiation.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:18
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
@Azu, about the waves, not necessarily, "standing waves" are a substitute for matter completely.

http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:23
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:47; edited 1 time in total
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:27
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
@Azu, about the waves, not necessarily, "standing waves" are a substitute for matter completely.

http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Have his theories even been peer reviewed?

asmcoder wrote:
matter is also movment of space.
you think gravity where came from?
space is expanding, matter forces limit this expansion, so we have slower expansion between 2 matter objects resulting in pull. Expansion speed is what einstein defined as c.

oh yes, you brain also expand so matter womnt grow at speed of light.
Gravity isn't matter, it's an effect of matter.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:31
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Have his theories even been peer reviewed?
Does it matter? They have all the known properties of matter, so until further data we collect on matter properties (rather, electron), they are 100% correct, like any such theory that validates all current properties.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:32
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Have his theories even been peer reviewed?
Does it matter? They have all the known properties of matter, so until further data we collect on matter properties (rather, electron), they are 100% correct, like any such theory that validates all current properties.
It's just one of many possibilities.
Assuming everything is true until it is proven false is a bad idea.
If you disagree with the above statement then you must assume it is true.. paradox!
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:34
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
There is no "truth" in a scientific theory since that would imply it can't change, which violates the scientific method completely and turns it into a religion (that is "stuck" and can't improve/change). Wink
Post 28 Jul 2009, 00:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
No.. you're actually arguing for religion. If you're going to believe everything just because it isn't yet proven false, then you must believe in all of the religious garbage, since none of it can be proved or disproved in any way. Laughing

I'm the one against it, since none of it can be proved in any way. Wink
Post 28 Jul 2009, 01:24
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
You are contradicting yourself. Truth, by definition, cannot change. At least we agree on that right?

How can you "improve" something that was already truth? That's like improving or changing the truth! The real conclusion is that it wasn't truth to begin with, and it likely won't be.

Remember, this is one of the major criteria of the scientific method. You must give refutable conditions or accept improvements, you don't want to be stuck do you?

Science is a tool. I "believe" in it the same as I believe in my calculator. I use it to predict crap. Not for "truth". Not interested with truth in science. That is called philosophy.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 01:46
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
You are contradicting yourself. Truth, by definition, cannot change. At least we agree on that right?
No to both of your statements.
At one point in time it was true that I agreed with you as I quoted your post.. this truth has changed, however, for I do not agree with you this time.


Borsuc wrote:
How can you "improve" something that was already truth? That's like improving or changing the truth! The real conclusion is that it wasn't truth to begin with, and it likely won't be.
Why are you asking me how to do that, when I never suggested or implied that I did it or that you should do it? Straw man?

Borsuc wrote:
Remember, this is one of the major criteria of the scientific method. You must give refutable conditions or accept improvements, you don't want to be stuck do you?
I don't want to be stuck believing something forever just because it can't be DIS-proved. I don't like to believe things unless there is a reason to. There being no reason to is reason enough not to for me.

Borsuc wrote:
Science is a tool. I "believe" in it the same as I believe in my calculator. I use it to predict crap. Not for "truth". Not interested with truth in science. That is called philosophy.
"Science" is just a synonym for knowledge. Meaning to know something.

Computers are tools.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 01:54
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
No to both of your statements.
At one point in time it was true that I agreed with you as I quoted your post.. this truth has changed, however, for I do not agree with you this time.
LOL what?
Truth can change?
That means it can be made up?
Then what's the REAL truth that won't change?
you know, the stuff we may never know?
how do you call that?

anyway unless you think that truth can't change, which is its definition, then this is pointless. Smile

Azu wrote:
I don't want to be stuck believing something forever just because it can't be DIS-proved. I don't like to believe things unless there is a reason to. There being no reason to is reason enough not to for me.
this "reason" is personal preference. The real science, which is based on the scientific method, doesn't need "a reason", it needs data.

As long as a theory can predict data, it is a valid theory. If it fails, then it's good, that's what makes science keep improving.

Azu wrote:
"Science" is just a synonym for knowledge. Meaning to know something.
Knowledge doesn't mean truth! Knowledge can be fantastical or imaginary.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 01:58
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
No to both of your statements.
At one point in time it was true that I agreed with you as I quoted your post.. this truth has changed, however, for I do not agree with you this time.
LOL what?
Re-read it slowly, so you can comprehend it, and then reply. Smile

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
I don't want to be stuck believing something forever just because it can't be DIS-proved. I don't like to believe things unless there is a reason to. There being no reason to is reason enough not to for me.
this "reason" is personal preference.
If you want to just believe whatever you personally prefer to believe just because, go ahead. That's called religion, FYI.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
"Science" is just a synonym for knowledge. Meaning to know something.
Knowledge doesn't mean truth! Knowledge can be fantastical or imaginary.
Weird.. which dictionary are you using? Try this one instead.
Post 28 Jul 2009, 02:02
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
Re-read it slowly, so you can comprehend it, and then reply. Smile
Are you referring to this:

1) Truth, by definition, cannot change.
2) At least we agree on that right?

and you said NO to both. So it is:

1) Truth can change
2) We disagree

no?

Azu wrote:
If you want to just believe whatever you personally prefer to believe just because, go ahead. That's called religion, FYI.
I believe in theories that predict stuff, currently. When they fail, I switch them to something else. It's called being a scientist.

Remember, it is not me who claims this is absolute truth. I simply use them, as tools. I use my computer. I don't care whether it's true or not. I care that I use it, and that it gives me results I predicted.

Azu wrote:
Weird.. which dictionary are you using? Try this one instead.
I don't see much about truth there, actually most definitions are not about absolute truth.

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 02:06
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Azu



Joined: 16 Dec 2008
Posts: 1160
Azu
Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Re-read it slowly, so you can comprehend it, and then reply. Smile
Are you referring to this:

1) Truth, by definition, cannot change.
2) At least we agree on that right?

and you said NO to both. So it is:

1) Truth can change
2) We disagree

no?
It was at one time true that I agreed with you while I quoted your post.
However, I am quoting your post now, but this time it is not true that I agree with you.
If that doesn't answer your question, I don't know what does.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
If you want to just believe whatever you personally prefer to believe just because, go ahead. That's called religion, FYI.
I believe in theories that predict stuff, currently. When they fail, I switch them to something else. It's called being a scientist.

Remember, it is not me who claims this is absolute truth. I simply use them, as tools. I use my computer. I don't care whether it's true or not. I care that I use it, and that it gives me results I predicted.
Okay.. I prefer to stick with a theory until/unless a better one comes up, not just believe in whichever one fits my argument at that moment.

Borsuc wrote:
Azu wrote:
Weird.. which dictionary are you using? Try this one instead.
I don't see much about truth there, actually most definitions are not about absolute truth.
You can have at least some proof of something without being 100% certain it is true. But you would have to believe everything that hasn't been 100% proven to be false..
Post 28 Jul 2009, 02:12
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Azu wrote:
You can have at least some proof of something without being 100% certain it is true. But you would have to believe everything that hasn't been 100% proven to be false..
A famous scientist called Max Planck once said:

"We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future."

Wink

_________________
Previously known as The_Grey_Beast
Post 28 Jul 2009, 02:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.