Well then maybe God should have learned how to write better instead of making a book consisting entirely of metaphors that can be interpreted any way the reader sees fit.
I really doubt more people believe that the earth is flat now than a couple hundreds of years ago...it's down to a small minority of truly retarded people who deny 'modern science' as the guy says. The same thing will happen with people who deny evolution in the next tens or hundreds of years, it will be even more undeniable when dna sequences and fossil records are expanded upon.
The moon constantly adds energy to the earth. The moon is constantly pulling on the earth and because it's in a state of constantly falling around the earth it in affect is constantly adding energy because the direction of force is changing position. If you were to calculate the amount of energy added to the earth where would you subtract that from? The moon continues to fall and never hit the earth and thus it constantly adds energy. Just because we make a law doesn't mean that the universe has to obey. Magnetic fields can have the same affect and even mater it self requires science to make new laws based on factors like temperature and motion. Take super fluids and super conductors, yet instead of updating our understanding of the nature of the universe we make a bandaid of new laws to protect the orthodoxy of science as in science is presupposed to be infallible when it is fallible, as a concept is not proven in an experiment, just a relationship. If energy is added by the moon it need to go somewhere and perhaps that's into new matter. The sun adds energy too. The presupposition that laws are infallible and peoples desire not to be ostracized can affect science more then you'd expect.I'll give an example. If a force accelerates a water jet at a speed much faster then the surrounding water can't fill the gap as a liquid, water vaporizes. The force required to accelerate the water is transfered to the water and can be measured. Now when the vapor bubble collapses the center of that bubble can reach 20,000 degrees Kelvin, four times hotter than the surface of our sun and explodes introducing more energy then was already introduced to the water.. so how did you get more energy then you put in? Add up the input force, then the first and second output forces, light, heat, and kinetic energy. You get more energy out then you put in.there are cheesy sound affects added but this is part of what I reference.<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc</a>(10:00)<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHTTIg7HY80">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHTTIg7HY80</a>There ended up being parallels in structure between religion and science that need not be as science didn't change psychological archetypes or human social dynamics. Science should have more then just the scientific method and should not have such an orthodoxy of powerful morons that only parrot what is written without any conceptual understanding. They stifle understanding! The morons of science are quite loud and slow progressions in science just as morons ground knowledge to a halt using religion. It's power in social group dynamics that motivates them and not understanding. There are people just like this man who says that the earth is flat because it is written, in science.
Berkana : "The biggest argument against this is that for this to happen, there can't be conservation of mass, and since mass is related to energy (E = mc^2) no conservation of mass implies no conservation of energy, at some level."Lets take fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into 1 atom of helium. The result is an atom with around 7% LESS MASS!!!say you were to call a hydrogen atom m1 and a helium atom m2the mass would be m2 < m1 + m1. energy or E = (m1 + m1 - m2) * speed of light squared.Now Lets take radioactive decay where say an alpha particle(helium nucleus) is emitted as an example. Lets use uranium emitting an alpha particle. Lets call an atom of uranium m1. Lets call the atom of uranium after radioactive decay m2 and the alpha particle m3.Som1 = pre decay atomm2 = post decay atomm3 = emitted helium atom.as for mass m1 < m2 + m3 so you end up with more massenergy or E = (m1 - m2)C2So radioactive decay results in both mater and energy in the classic sense.the changes in mass seem to show that mass is determined by an external pressure. That the vacuum isn't empty.If anti-mater can turn mater into energy then clearly energy can become mater. There is constant input of energy into the earth from cosmic rays and gravity, so one could get planetary growth. Also seeing as mass changes based on the space it occupies as in the reduction of mass from fusion and growth in mass after fission one can clearly show an unnamed substance displaced by mater. If the universe is expanding and that thins that substance then the size of atoms must also increase.The nature of reality can't be explained by classic ideas. As the double slit experiment and the delayed choice experiments show that what we can know changes the past. It's the ability to know the path a particle took and not detection of the particles path that determines the path the particle took in the past. So if we can't know where the particles were then it was in no one place and interfered with it's self as in didn't exist as mater in the classical sense, but if we can know, then it was only in one place. This knowledge changes the past as there are different results from waves and particles. So how did the particle know we could know and why did it care? Thus what is the nature of reality?
immuneFeb 22, 2008
This is why we are at war with this county.
minossFeb 22, 2008
Well then maybe God should have learned how to write better instead of making a book consisting entirely of metaphors that can be interpreted any way the reader sees fit.
devaneyFeb 22, 2008
I really doubt more people believe that the earth is flat now than a couple hundreds of years ago...it's down to a small minority of truly retarded people who deny 'modern science' as the guy says. The same thing will happen with people who deny evolution in the next tens or hundreds of years, it will be even more undeniable when dna sequences and fossil records are expanded upon.
Closed AccountFeb 22, 2008
توحد معظم القوى العراقية, الوطنية وغير الوطنية بمواجهة خطر ميليشيات البيشمركة
nocash23Feb 23, 2008
finally something muslims and fundamentalist christians can agree on.
anonymouszFeb 24, 2008
the Quran never said that the earth is flat...<a class="user" href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=5HR5FcRDPbg">http://youtube.com/watch?v=5HR5FcRDPbg</a>
Closed AccountFeb 26, 2008
It's not a fact. Open your science book.
tweeMar 13, 2008
you know the universe is actually flat, right? thats the shape of it.
abram730Aug 24, 2008
The moon constantly adds energy to the earth. The moon is constantly pulling on the earth and because it's in a state of constantly falling around the earth it in affect is constantly adding energy because the direction of force is changing position. If you were to calculate the amount of energy added to the earth where would you subtract that from? The moon continues to fall and never hit the earth and thus it constantly adds energy. Just because we make a law doesn't mean that the universe has to obey. Magnetic fields can have the same affect and even mater it self requires science to make new laws based on factors like temperature and motion. Take super fluids and super conductors, yet instead of updating our understanding of the nature of the universe we make a bandaid of new laws to protect the orthodoxy of science as in science is presupposed to be infallible when it is fallible, as a concept is not proven in an experiment, just a relationship. If energy is added by the moon it need to go somewhere and perhaps that's into new matter. The sun adds energy too. The presupposition that laws are infallible and peoples desire not to be ostracized can affect science more then you'd expect.I'll give an example. If a force accelerates a water jet at a speed much faster then the surrounding water can't fill the gap as a liquid, water vaporizes. The force required to accelerate the water is transfered to the water and can be measured. Now when the vapor bubble collapses the center of that bubble can reach 20,000 degrees Kelvin, four times hotter than the surface of our sun and explodes introducing more energy then was already introduced to the water.. so how did you get more energy then you put in? Add up the input force, then the first and second output forces, light, heat, and kinetic energy. You get more energy out then you put in.there are cheesy sound affects added but this is part of what I reference.<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKPrGxB1Kzc</a>(10:00)<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHTTIg7HY80">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHTTIg7HY80</a>There ended up being parallels in structure between religion and science that need not be as science didn't change psychological archetypes or human social dynamics. Science should have more then just the scientific method and should not have such an orthodoxy of powerful morons that only parrot what is written without any conceptual understanding. They stifle understanding! The morons of science are quite loud and slow progressions in science just as morons ground knowledge to a halt using religion. It's power in social group dynamics that motivates them and not understanding. There are people just like this man who says that the earth is flat because it is written, in science.
abram730Aug 25, 2008
Berkana : "The biggest argument against this is that for this to happen, there can't be conservation of mass, and since mass is related to energy (E = mc^2) no conservation of mass implies no conservation of energy, at some level."Lets take fusion of 2 hydrogen atoms into 1 atom of helium. The result is an atom with around 7% LESS MASS!!!say you were to call a hydrogen atom m1 and a helium atom m2the mass would be m2 < m1 + m1. energy or E = (m1 + m1 - m2) * speed of light squared.Now Lets take radioactive decay where say an alpha particle(helium nucleus) is emitted as an example. Lets use uranium emitting an alpha particle. Lets call an atom of uranium m1. Lets call the atom of uranium after radioactive decay m2 and the alpha particle m3.Som1 = pre decay atomm2 = post decay atomm3 = emitted helium atom.as for mass m1 < m2 + m3 so you end up with more massenergy or E = (m1 - m2)C2So radioactive decay results in both mater and energy in the classic sense.the changes in mass seem to show that mass is determined by an external pressure. That the vacuum isn't empty.If anti-mater can turn mater into energy then clearly energy can become mater. There is constant input of energy into the earth from cosmic rays and gravity, so one could get planetary growth. Also seeing as mass changes based on the space it occupies as in the reduction of mass from fusion and growth in mass after fission one can clearly show an unnamed substance displaced by mater. If the universe is expanding and that thins that substance then the size of atoms must also increase.The nature of reality can't be explained by classic ideas. As the double slit experiment and the delayed choice experiments show that what we can know changes the past. It's the ability to know the path a particle took and not detection of the particles path that determines the path the particle took in the past. So if we can't know where the particles were then it was in no one place and interfered with it's self as in didn't exist as mater in the classical sense, but if we can know, then it was only in one place. This knowledge changes the past as there are different results from waves and particles. So how did the particle know we could know and why did it care? Thus what is the nature of reality?
bl4ckmanNov 23, 2008
If anyone here cares about the Earth, then find out how you can help it by making your own electricity.Find out more here > <a class="user" href="http://makeyourownwindmill.net/">http://makeyourownwindmill.net/</a>
taherdabbourDec 2, 2008
maybe he is right :)<a class="user" href="http://www.bestweightloss2u.com">http://www.bestweightloss2u.com</a>