It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 17
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I read that post.

All this illustrates is that if science comes up with a better explanation, it will change to meet that. OR if it is somehow proven to be wrong, then it will look for a better answer.

However those laws have stood for a rather long time.

You seem to think that Science is a single grand ediface, which will topple if something changes, or is wrong. Its not, rather it is an adaptive philosophy, that (sorry to use the term folks) evolves as evidence changes.

Spirituality, not so much. Spiritual paths of all sorts (again remember I'm deeply spiritual, just not abrahamic) relies ong unprovable (personal or shared) gnoses. They don't change. Thus Christianity is all about the "being saved via Christ" stick. Just as my path is the "Enlightenment through Imbas/Awen".




posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.


I'm not sure if unfalsifiable is correctly used here.
It's a clever bit of wordplay however.

Here's my scientific theory...
If you release a bowling ball from a height it will always drop.

Because it always happens doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
It just makes it unfalsified, there's a very big difference.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Here's my scientific theory...
If you release a bowling ball from a height it will always drop.



Nice to meet you Sir Newton



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Well your bowling ball needs to be in a gravity well for that to happen
Try that in space (height is of course relative) it might not drop
Of course you will need to place no downward force to make sure that it was not you making it happen.

I agree that unfalsifiable is correct. Very few things in science are unfasifiable, simply because science is open to new evidence. Indeed to use that very term implies that rationality has left the debate



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Exactly, however after seeing that my bowling ball theory is incorrect it doesn't mean I can start throwing bowling balls around.

Perfect example why rewriting everything when we find more information isn't an accurate reflection.

Every time (whilst alive) I breathe in I breathe out again.
According to chr0naut's logic this is unfalsifiable and therefore just an assumption.

Pretty clever way to try and dismiss the most solid evidence. At least one of the better ones I've seen.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: chr0naut
The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.


I'm not sure if unfalsifiable is correctly used here.
It's a clever bit of wordplay however.

Here's my scientific theory...
If you release a bowling ball from a height it will always drop.

Because it always happens doesn't make it unfalsifiable.
It just makes it unfalsified, there's a very big difference.



OK, I agree that the 'laws' may potentially be found falsifiable in future.

At present, however, they cannot be and obviously, historically, they haven't (as Noinden pointed out, they've been around for quite a while). So until then...




posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Until then what?

How many times do I have to drop a bowling ball before it's not an unscientific assumption to say it will fall.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

Until then what?

How many times do I have to drop a bowling ball before it's not an unscientific assumption to say it will fall.



Never, because we already know of situations where the bowling ball will float.

I was talking about the first two laws of thermodynamics, not sporting equipment (although it might be arguable if indoor bowling fits the 'scientific' definition of a sport).



edit on 9/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

It doesn't matter what we are talking about.

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness



Would you be comfortable walking into my Kilo lab, being handed a set of instructions and using any of the following chemicals, used to make pharmaceuticals, then take said pharmacutical you had made?

The chemicals are:
Phosgene
Methyl Iodide
Hydroflouric acid
A solublized palladium catalyst



Ok I have time for your game and I haven't cheated nor will but run you through my process of thought as I do it...

Phosgene; the root is phosporus and well gene is a coding thats specific so we have a genome of phospher perhaps from an organism

Methyl Iodide; Methyl is a form of alcohol often used as a solvent and Iodide is related to iodine which comes from a turpine often used as a dye marker

Hydroflouric acid Hydroflouric acid well this one is a but easier as it is a strong acid that will disolve even bone... but is based off of flourine which is a gas

A solublized palladium catalyst ok solublized just mean pre disolved and palladium is a metal and a very precious one at that cost wise and happens to be an element on the periodic table... obviously not a salt of it from the solublized

Ok so we have a phosphorus gene an alcohol dye a corrosive acid and predisolved precious metal likely just powdered form. Phosphorus has the property to glow the dye the propety to stain and the acid to nom nom nom and a metal powder.

So what could this witches brew make? Well the acid and metal would go into a reaction the alcohol dye could be used as an activator or neutralyser and well a bioluminous phosphor.

You didn;t say any of the amounts which is very important btw or else we'd get a slurry of acid cause that could be like 500 gallons or litres if you prefer metric no i obvioulsy didn't convert and the predisolved metal could be a picogram so yeah nothing is what this would make without proper measurement of the ingredients...

So lets rationalize them into the acid making a paste out of the metal the alocol iodine as an adhesive to bond the paste when dry and the biolumanence added so this paste not only is metal but adheres and also glows under cetain conditions.

Other than something that would be painted on to be reactive to a certain type of light or perhaps even glow in the dark? Since you said a pharmaceutical; I would say a dye used that one consumes so that a part of the body could be seen properly in an imaging machine and that's my honest guess... but I honestly dont know but that is my best "uneducated" guess.

I certinaly wouldn't want to drink it to be honest if that's what it is.
edit on 9-9-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp. but not all 18 hours days are yummy



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigBrotherDarkness

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness



Would you be comfortable walking into my Kilo lab, being handed a set of instructions and using any of the following chemicals, used to make pharmaceuticals, then take said pharmacutical you had made?

The chemicals are:
Phosgene
Methyl Iodide
Hydroflouric acid
A solublized palladium catalyst



Ok I have time for your game and I haven't cheated nor will but run you through my process of thought as I do it...

Phosgene; the root is phosporus and well gene is a coding thats specific so we have a genome of phospher perhaps from an organism

Methyl Iodide; Methyl is a form of alcohol often used as a solvent and Iodide is related to iodine which comes from a turpine often used as a dye marker

Hydroflouric acid Hydroflouric acid well this one is a but easier as it is a strong acid that will disolve even bone... but is based off of flourine which is a gas

A solublized palladium catalyst ok solublized just mean pre disolved and palladium is a metal and a very precious one at that cost wise and happens to be an element on the periodic table... obviously not a salt of it from the solublized

Ok so we have a phosphorus gene an alcohol dye a corrosive acid and predisolved precious metal likely just powdered form. Phosphorus has the property to glow the dye the propety to stain and the acid to nom nom nom and a metal powder.

So what could this witches brew make? Well the acid and metal would go into a reaction the alcohol dye could be used as an activator or neutralyser and well a bioluminous phosphor.

You didn;t say any of the amounts which is very important btw or else we'd get a slurry of acid cause that could be like 500 gallons or litres if you prefer metric no i obvioulsy didn't convert and the predisolved metal could be a picogram so yeah nothing is what this would make without proper measurement of the ingredients...

So lets rationalize them into the acid making a paste out of the metal the alocol iodine as an adhesive to bond the paste when dry and the biolumanence added so this paste not only is metal but adheres and also glows under cetain conditions.

Other than something that would be painted on to be reactive to a certain type of light or perhaps even glow in the dark? Since you said a pharmaceutical; I would say a dye used that one consumes so that a part of the body could be seen properly in an imaging machine and that's my honest guess... but I honestly dont know but that is my best "uneducated" guess.

I certinaly wouldn't want to drink it to be honest if that's what it is.


I think he was more getting at how nasty these chems are. If just anyone mixed them, and tried to ingest the result, they'd most likely end up at the 'dead' end of the scale of states of human existence.


edit on 9/9/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

Until then what?

How many times do I have to drop a bowling ball before it's not an unscientific assumption to say it will fall.


Never, because we already know of situations where the bowling ball will float.


Bowling can be dated to about 3200 BC, in the year 200 BC after 3,000 yrs of dropping bowling balls was it an unscientific assumption to say the ball will fall?



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


The zeroth Law of Thermodynamics is: "If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, they are in thermal equilibrium with each other". We have never observed any exceptions to this rule and cannot concieve of how an exception might occur. So a valid alternate thesis cannot be proposed and this means that we cannot "falsify" the theory - we cannot test its validity against an alternate. Because we cannot empirically test this theory, it is an assumption.

The first Law of Thermodynamics is: "When energy passes, as work, as heat, or with matter, into or out from a system, the system's internal energy changes in accord with the law of conservation of energy". Again, no antithesis can be proposed. As it is unfalsifiable, it is therefore untestable in that regard and, therefore, an assumption.


the user below very neatly puts that issue to rest.


originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: chr0naut

The implication that you can't prove something to be true until there's an example of it not being true is paradoxical.




originally posted by: chr0naut

That still leaves two fundamental and foundational "laws" which are assumptive.

But I'm sure you know that and were just trolling.




they are 'assumptive' because they are consistent and substantiated in every place we have looked and tested and recorded? and you would have professionals 'confirm' these laws by locating an instance in which these laws do not apply?

....riiiiiiiight. and im the troll.

edit on 9-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Maybe I'm being too simple here, but a scientific law is a measurement not an absolute truth. Just because they might not be able to test what causes those measurements, doesn't mean scientists can't make predictions and tests based on the measurements themselves.
edit on 9 9 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


It is possible that a suicide has to come back and rinse/repeat until they finish this life appropriately. To move on maybe to the next learning life.

Hell is the grave not many people believe in a fiery torture place.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


It is possible that a suicide has to come back and rinse/repeat until they finish this life appropriately. To move on maybe to the next learning life.

Hell is the grave not many people believe in a fiery torture place.


because there is no support for it in scripture or because it is difficult to reconcile the pope with guantanamo bay? (allegorically speaking)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


It is possible that a suicide has to come back and rinse/repeat until they finish this life appropriately. To move on maybe to the next learning life.

Hell is the grave not many people believe in a fiery torture place.


because there is no support for it in scripture or because it is difficult to reconcile the pope with guantanamo bay? (allegorically speaking)

:-) I can't see anyone who has children thinking their "Father" would place them in eternal torture no matter how bad they had behaved. I could be wrong about what most Christians believe i guess many do believe in a literal torture forever place. How sad.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SLAYER69

This is why I consider suicide an even FAR greater sin among atheists than Christians. At least Christians still live on to be punished for it in hell. If you are believer of atheism then you believe this is the only chance you'll get, thus you should make it want to count. Ending it early isn't "making it count."


It is possible that a suicide has to come back and rinse/repeat until they finish this life appropriately. To move on maybe to the next learning life.

Hell is the grave not many people believe in a fiery torture place.


because there is no support for it in scripture or because it is difficult to reconcile the pope with guantanamo bay? (allegorically speaking)

:-) I can't see anyone who has children thinking their "Father" would place them in eternal torture no matter how bad they had behaved. I could be wrong about what most Christians believe i guess many do believe in a literal torture forever place. How sad.


scripture supports it, but current sociopolitics doesnt support it. its bad marketing to wave a stick around menacingly so all the emphasis is on the carrot at this point. hope is almost as compelling as fear. almost.
edit on 9-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Thats why it really isnt science but statistics... a likelihood based on specific chosen variables change the environment or variable to space and where is the bowling ball going to fall to? Toward the event horizon just like everything else in the entire solar system is.



posted on Sep, 9 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

to be honest I think the poster is one of those that preaches science the same way some people preach god... infallible and only prophets or scientist can divine the sh!t to humanity.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join