Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
ask him.
The best arguments atheists and religionists have been able to muster
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... says the scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't understand why he's not fooling anyone.
... because you realize that your inability to understand my posts makes it virtually impossible to maintain your ruse, which means that you are wasting all the time you put into presenting your implausible Google-fueled facade of expertise.
Too funny! You believe photons mediate international negotiations.
I'll give you a quick terminology and physics lesson. Electromagnetism is mediated by the medium. I'll give you a moment to let that sink in. The medium is usually a metal and is a precondition/initial assumption, not a cause or effect. Photons are never a medium, and are either:
a cause: resulting in the emission of electrons (photoelectric effect), electrons increasing energy levels, the photons' own wavelengths and directions being altered (scattering).
an effect: the result of electrons dropping energy levels, radiance from a blackbody, etc.
Since photons are never a medium, they never mediate anything. You really shouldn't just copy-paste everything your read on the internet as though it absolutely must be true just because you read it on the internet.
Thank you for acknowledging my correction of your error. The Higgs boson is a purely theoretical concept created for some unemployed "theoretical physicist" to continue receiving research grants and to be able to feed his family. There is no Higgs boson in chemistry and no engineer can use one to develop any technology. You only believe that such a purely theoretical partical actually exists because you read it on the internet. You never met any engineer who worked with one or who built anything with one. You never learned that mass is already understood via chemistry and the law of conservation of mass, so you latched onto the concept of the Higgs boson that you read on the internet and refuse to listen to anyone who knows much more than you do.
... and you never called boooooolsch't on this wording. You never asked why the Higgs boson was claimed to have been "discovered" and "confirmed" when it was never observed, but only theoretically speculated by the same individuals whose research funding was dependent upon such "discovery" and "confirmation." Instead of skeptically doubting, as any intelligent scientist would, you simply regurgitated what the "researchers" posted on the internet ... because you believed it to be the gospel truth ... just because you read it on the internet.
Today, all scientists and all engineers fully account for mass via chemsitry and the law of conservation of mass (and in rare cases, in conjunction with Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity) and nobody uses the Higgs boson. Nobody. The Higgs boson has never been observed and is not a part of any science model.
Your implication that the Higgs boson somehow has great importance is absurd. It has no importance to anyone; it only has perceived importance to gullible people who regurgitate everything they read on the internet as gospel truth.
I am an expert on the standard model, and obviously you are trying to hijack the term, so I am asking you what you mean by it.
Nope. The Standard Model, humanity's current best theory to describe nature, used by engineers to develop technology, is classical physics and chemistry.
Nobody has used a Higgs boson for anything whatsoever ... because it doesn't really exist, despite what the internet might have to say.
Correct. Thank you for highlighting this. Science cannot address the unobserved past.
Correct. No amount of light will hold your beer. The mathematical "energy<-->mass" relationship doesn't somehow make all mass and energy interchangeable. You have to be a moron to even entertain the idea.
Correct. You can thank Max Planck.
Correct. An inertial frame of reference is the time-dilation characteristics of a particular location. The conditions at a point don't "accelerate" nor does that have any meaning.
You have done nothing but EVADE my question. What do you believe the term means?
Correct. Science predicts nature via cause effect. Science tells you in what effect a given cause will result.
If I tell you who will win the Jones/Miocic fight without offering any explanation for anything, have I explained anything?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Great point.
Atheism is not certainty. Atheism is being content with all uncertainty about the supernatural, and not transforming any into certainty (i.e. faith, belief). Those who adopt a religious faith are certain/convinced about the domain of their particular doctrine.
Atheism isn't omniscience. Atheists admit to not knowing whether any religion is true, considering that any one might be true, but recognizing that they themselves are not certain/convinced of any particular religion's domain of doctrine.
Because you find my threads so interesting to read and lurk.
Any thread you start, you will almost never find me posting in, because your lack of knowledge and insight are intolerable and mind-numbingly boring.
I was incorrect here. There is fairly decent circumstantial evidence this gospel was either written by the apostle John, or dictated by him to someone fluent in Greek.
The earliest secure attestation that the apostle John was the author was from Bishop Iraneus, writing about 80 to 90 years after John's Gospel. Iraneus knew Polycarp who was a disciple of John, so Iraneus' information is only one person removed from an actual eyewitness.
On the other hand, it's possible Iranreus was confused about what he was told, and a different John (not the apostle) authored John's gospel.
DAILY REMINDER THAT CYPRESS IS A FRANTIC GOOGLER
And here we go....you can click on any one of them to see the full context. You frantically google more than I eat hot food.