Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

god doesn't want your belief


danielost

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, danielost said:

energy can niether be created nor destroyed.  light is created in the heart of a sun.  thus must be matter.

Where does that matter go when you turn your light off at night  ? 

 

and dont say it goes to sleep   ( 'cause I thought of that first !  ) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Just to mess you up even more, from a physics POV, electron flow (being negatively charged) flow from negative to positive. 

Oh O  !   Now Danielost will 'fix' his  house  connections    

 

Related image

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That was a really good description. Pretty much how we got our heads around the concept as apprentices. 

By the same hose  analogy ( for M.WOO )  ;  The water flows out from the tap , so it loses water   -    and flows down the hose  towards the  nozzle, that the water flows into   +    (if that was too hard, stick the end in a bucket and watch the bucket gain water  +  )  

 

Nyuk   nyuk    nyuk  ...

Related image

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Wrong, as visible light is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, not all of which is created in the heart of a sun. Ultimately it all started with the Big Bang well before there were any suns.

cormac

Which goes to show that Daniel didn't watch the videos I posted. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Which goes to show that Daniel didn't watch the videos I posted. 

He makes it rather obvious that he prefers to remain willfully ignorant. Such a pity.

cormac

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh , your not online, oh well, and I'll catch this back at a later time myself too anyHOOOOO,

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:
21 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

[[ update:EDIT yeah amazing speeds. My one amp is nothing HAhahahaha !]]] What's this, yeah info out there to be found. Your point, my ampere comment off ? Amp is the rate or SPEED the electrons are running through the copper wire in a second.
1 is 6.25 x 10^18   .... lets see 2 amps is 1.25 x 10^19

so 60,000 watts or more being pushed around the grid, you're saying like there's no negative electrons moving ?
There's no electrons moving?, hmmmm. well I know the kids had it backwards and now we know they're negative. Lets see,
your saying its slow? hmm.

Just to mess you up even more, from a physics POV, electron flow (being negatively charged) flow from negative to positive. 

oh I do like this editor YEY !   , takes time but ... it is clearer.

13 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

is backwards NEGATIVE flows out,,, another story ... anyway thanks so very much.

.... and now moving on after perusing the thread

to be clearerREGARDING""  flow from negative to positive" to mess me up more THANKS! hahahahaha yeah a given NEG out to pos. , diodes are cool, 101, think I mentioned that and that's why some math was STILL IS backwards.
no not talking about the childish (oddity)  I  E  P
pseudonymic junk either. They never thought of (amperes volt watt)?
Fun fun fun!  I'm sure their will be lingo mistakes in this, but here we go !

This time I have src urls YEY !  no shortage of info on how math and schematics were
eeeh not quite exact.

""Franklin assumed electric charge moved in the opposite direction that it actually does, and so objects he called “negative” (representing a deficiency of charge) actually have a surplus of electrons.

By the time the true direction of electron flow was discovered, the nomenclature of “positive” and “negative” had already been so well established in the scientific community that no effort was made to change it "" (correct it --mwoo:)
src:http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/direct-current/chpt-1/conventional-versus-electron-flow/

"points against the direction of electron flow. This is because the diode symbol was invented by
engineers, who predominantly use conventional flow notation in their schematics,
showing current as a flow of charge from the positive (+) side of the voltage source
to the negative (-)."
src: http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chpt-3/introduction-to-diodes-and-rectifiers/

Number 2)
Also, curiously just why?::::: these numbers for coulomb ! lingo are different
all across the board(similar to multi names lingo), can see different numbers in
different books and publications.
"  -e 1.602 X 10^(-)19  "

[[[ and if its this  1/1.602 × 10 ^-19 = 6.24 × 10 ^18 , well all the publications
NEVER STATE THAT! always one or the other, more mixing things YEY! ]]]]
http://www.electrical4u.com/electric-current-and-theory-of-electricity/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/imgele/echg.gif

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elecur.html
"The rate of flow of electric charge is called electric current and is measured in Amperes."
So why all the semantics? fun fun fun not to mention all the Julies / joules,
Zetta and Yamoto/Yatta to name a couple HA!

Oh my net is acting up , or something POSTING NOW!

okay somewhat done, was looking for joules chart , billions of calcs out there but no list or diagram, oh well.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not mean this with disrespect. 

But can someone please assure me that I'm not the only one having a hard time making sense of MWoo7's post?

MWoo7, having a hard time figuring out your post and more importantly your point. Can you please clarify it, in layman's terms, for me? 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was getting back to previous posts by back to earth and psyche 101.

Ahhh * sighs*  was going to clean that up but now it seems I can't.  No edit feature, timed out or such, ah yeah Pretty Funny now here come the jokes I don't care I like jokes : D

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

Oh , your not online, oh well, and I'll catch this back at a later time myself too anyHOOOOO,

yeah, I come and go , but if you leave a post when I am gone .... when I come back I will see  it     ;)  

3 hours ago, MWoo7 said:

oh I do like this editor YEY !   , takes time but ... it is clearer.

.... and now moving on after perusing the thread

to be clearerREGARDING""  flow from negative to positive" to mess me up more THANKS! hahahahaha yeah a given NEG out to pos. , diodes are cool, 101, think I mentioned that and that's why some math was STILL IS backwards.
no not talking about the childish (oddity)  I  E  P
pseudonymic junk either. They never thought of (amperes volt watt)?
Fun fun fun!  I'm sure their will be lingo mistakes in this, but here we go !

This time I have src urls YEY !  no shortage of info on how math and schematics were
eeeh not quite exact.

""Franklin assumed electric charge moved in the opposite direction that it actually does, and so objects he called “negative” (representing a deficiency of charge) actually have a surplus of electrons.

Like the tap , turn it on, it has a surplus of water , so the surplus flows out and, it 'gives away ' water  so  it is  -  on the 'side ' of the tap the water flows out of  .....  but  + on the 'side' of the tap the water flows into . 

next lesson :  electrical connections;   in 'series'   or  'parallel  '  .     ;)      

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sahir said:

I do not mean this with disrespect. 

But can someone please assure me that I'm not the only one having a hard time making sense of MWoo7's post?

MWoo7, having a hard time figuring out your post and more importantly your point. Can you please clarify it, in layman's terms, for me? 

 

Its tricky, isnt it ?   :)  

MWoo is the type of person that livens up the half insanely bored checkout chicks life when she comes through the register . 

(Thats actually a compliment   MW00 ! )

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

He makes it rather obvious that he prefers to remain willfully ignorant. Such a pity.

cormac

Why would anyone want to do that? I know I mess things up and get a few of my facts wrong and people correct me. Keeps me sharp. I just couldn't stay in a state of ignorance.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XenoFish said:

Why would anyone want to do that? I know I mess things up and get a few of my facts wrong and people correct me. Keeps me sharp. I just couldn't stay in a state of ignorance.

So he can continue claiming "Godidit" without having to do any thinking for himself because God (anyone's) forbid he should actually learn anything on his own. That would be sacrilege.

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

So he can continue claiming "Godidit" without having to do any thinking for himself because God (anyone's) forbid he should actually learn anything on his own. That would be sacrilege.

cormac

b56.jpg

He plays his god card so well.:lol:

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, maybe a Mod should change the Title of the thread to "God doesn't want your Physics"?

Last I checked Religious Belief and Physics were still independent concepts. The claim that Physics trumps Myth doesn't necessarily counter Belief.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/7/2017 at 6:33 AM, XenoFish said:

If god is real where did god come from and who/what created god? Do I really need to ask the infinite question?

That is a good question, but really why does it matter? If we accept a supernatural creator, then accepting he came into being supernaturally shouldn't be surprising?

19 hours ago, back to earth said:

Ah ... but the Big Bang isnt in the Bible .... he's go you there   :)  

It's right there in Genesis. "Let there be Light".

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, this was in regards to previous posts, in regards to psyche and bte posts/replies.

eh , was never a question on negative flowing out to positive, that's why I highlighted it several times in my previous texts.

Alrighty well thanks a lot, very much appreciated. Yep you were right the rate of -e 1.602 X 10^(-)19 electrons going by in a second is pretty slow.

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone wished to claim that god is a real, physical entity they need to be able to back that claim. If you hold a conceptual version of god (any god will do) then that belongs in the realm of psychology, as it is a product of beliefs. Ideas, concepts, thoughts, intentions, and emotions. I've already said that I have no problem with a psychological model of religious belief. Because that's between you and your concept (idea) of god. A thought-form you've cultivated within your mind. A compact packet of belief. 

It's the whole objective subjective argument all over again. 

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

It's right there in Genesis. "Let there be Light".

Good try, but no.

There wasn't any light until about 380.000 years after the big bang.

https://jwst.nasa.gov/firstlight.html

http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

Lets face it the bible just isn't a science book, no matter how much you might wish it to be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

That is a good question, but really why does it matter? If we accept a supernatural creator, then accepting he came into being supernaturally shouldn't be surprising?

That's if you blindly accept it and don't think about it. My problem is that I do think about it. Which is why going on faith concerning the supernatural doesn't work for me. My problem was a occultist was that I question how it all worked. I could never go on pure faith. Something just kept digging in my subconscious asking me, "Why?".

Why does god answer only select peoples prayers? 

Why does god care if we have faith or not?

Why is faith important at all?

What kind of god is it really if it get's angry if we lack faith/belief?

Too many question and real answers except on. We made it all up. The Christian God like all those before it was the product of our own creativity, which allowed use to explain natural phenomenon. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Man, maybe a Mod should change the Title of the thread to "God doesn't want your Physics"?

Now bad, but I might suggest "How Physics killed the claims attributed to God."

Might be a bit too long but? 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

Last I checked Religious Belief and Physics were still independent concepts.

Spirituality Religion and Beliefs is for amicable banter about belief. I try my level best to avoid that section and let the religious people discuss their beliefs in peace. 

And ... it offers a great hiding place from accountability ;) ....... LOL  :devil: 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

The claim that Physics trumps Myth doesn't necessarily counter Belief.

Now sure how you see that, it seems to me to be a defiant stance of belief? Deliberate ignorance? eg. I don't care if the evidence shows that the Universe is natural, I am going to pretend that Godidit anyway? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

That is a good question, but really why does it matter?

Yes it does, we deserve to know what really happened, not what some ancient goat herder made up. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

If we accept a supernatural creator, then accepting he came into being supernaturally shouldn't be surprising?

Yes, "the supernatural" is an extension of God. It does not exist either, one has to defy current knowledge, discovery, observation and prediction to accept this childish notion from tradition. 

1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

It's right there in Genesis. "Let there be Light".

I have to support Noteverythingisaconspiracy here, I have mentioned even in this thread that God did not "Let there be light" after the Big Bang, the particle soup left over was in too much chaos, it took around 400,000 years for it to cool down enough for atoms to form out of the particles. Then the atoms come together for POPIII stars, the heat and pressure makes more heavy elements, so we get POPII stars they make even more and here we are. POPI stars and us. 

Everything evolves, even the Universe itself. 

But I am sure somebody will create a metaphor to find some way of connecting the two!! ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Good try, but no.

There wasn't any light until about 380.000 years after the big bang.

https://jwst.nasa.gov/firstlight.html

http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

Lets face it the bible just isn't a science book, no matter how much you might wish it to be.

And add to that that by the time the Earth was created circa 4.54 billion years BP light had already been around nearly 9 billion years (13+ billion years BP) since not long after the Big Bang and a minimum of circa 4.6 billion years since the creation of our sun. This means that the Biblical statement below isn't remotely correct:

Quote

1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/

By the time the Earth formed it already fell under the early suns light, as well as its gravitational pull and as there was no "deep", meaning no waters of any appreciable depth, that would also be incorrect. In short "it's in the Bible" cannot be used as validation for the Big Bang Theory. 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow busy in here.  No-- no ramblins from me.  Funny DieChecker's title Changed to bit::: """ God doesn't want your Physics  "

... oh and it seems like this would be on a billboard or poster etc. ""   Deliberate ignorance "" , kind of catchy like the repeating and repeating or same narrative over and over """The Christian God like all those before it was the product of our own creativity"  So interesting in here/this thread, still haven't read all the comments in here yet. Waiting for more WOOHOO! Oh one last thing, ? looking... looking .. brb  OH! thought this said WOO ! ahahahahahha!

24 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Everything evolves, even the Universe itself. 

But I am sure somebody will create a metaphor to find some way of connecting the two!! ;)

 

Edited by MWoo7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/20/2016 at 10:45 PM, danielost said:

god doesn't want your belief, he wants your love.  all life wants love.  even plants live better with love.  isn't that all you want.  that's all I want.

You don't know what God wants, unless you choose to listen to those who have a direct encounter and know who He is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Good try, but no.

There wasn't any light until about 380.000 years after the big bang.

https://jwst.nasa.gov/firstlight.html

http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html

Lets face it the bible just isn't a science book, no matter how much you might wish it to be.

If you're dealing with people barely out of the stone age... The people the Genesis story was for, they'd need it cooked down to the ultimate basics. "Let there be subatomic soup and expansion" wouldn't mean much to them. :lol:

Overall, I agree the Bible isn't a science book and should be used as such.

EDIT: I did a bit of research on Wikipedia and it seems there was a Photon Epoch 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and it was 400,000 years when matter started to clump up. If things didn't cool down till 400,000 years, that implies photons exchanging heat all over the universe, some of which must have been visual light. Not that it mattered at the time....:devil:

Another Edit: That led me to the primordial photon barrier. Which says photons did exist before, but it was only after 400,000 years that visible light was free to travel. So, I'm not sure I'm entirely right, but I think you're not entirely right either... 400,000 years is the first light we can detect, but photons did exist before that.

Quote

Prior to recombination, photons were not able to freely travel through the universe, as they constantly scattered off the free electrons and protons. This scattering causes a loss of information, and "there is therefore a photon barrier at a redshift" near that of recombination that prevents us from using photons directly to learn about the universe at larger redshifts.[11] Once recombination had occurred, however, the mean free path of photons greatly increased due to the lower number of free electrons. Shortly after recombination, the photon mean free path became larger than the Hubble length, and photons traveled freely without interacting with matter.

 

Edited by DieChecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.