It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

page: 10
2
share:

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:04 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66

Light is one dimension within emitted energy.

So you are changing your definition of dimension to the frequency spectrum?

Energy and matter are dimensions of finite.

Then you change the use of dimension almost immediately.

How do you define dimension?

Everything has its own dimension even the frequencies. Because it is emitted from a source. All frequencies belong to the dimension of emitted energies. A frequency is a emitted wave length.

You can divide all the dimensions into three main dimensions.

1. The infinite.

2. Finite matter.

3. Finite emitted energies.

The infinite houses them all. But only interact with 1 dimension. The dimension of emitted energies.

The dimension of emitted energies have its own expansion order, after it is released from its source.

Surrounding all matter, you will find the dimension of emitted energies.

The expansion of emitted energies expand faster then matter. But you have to keep in mind that the dimension of emitted energies also act as a restriction to how fast matter will emit/release its energy, and change.

If you compare this to how pressure expands you will get the general idea.

All matter consists of compressed energy. This will tell you that emitted energies have less compression than the matter it is released from.

Emitted energies will tell you that the infinite dimension of energy has less compression than emitted energy. Because the infinite dimension can't be compressed. It only is.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 12:58 PM
So basically this is your own definition of dimension that is not related to any part of science. It's just something you made up in your copious spare time. It sounds more like you use the word dimension to mean volume.

There appears to be a contradiction in your statements.
1. The infinite
2. The infinite dimension of energy

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
So basically this is your own definition of dimension that is not related to any part of science. It's just something you made up in your copious spare time. It sounds more like you use the word dimension to mean volume.

There appears to be a contradiction in your statements.
1. The infinite
2. The infinite dimension of energy

What ever. You wouldn't understand this if fed you with a spoon.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by spy66

Obviously all you can do is throw out word salad. You have no understanding of science - at all.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66

Obviously all you can do is throw out word salad. You have no understanding of science - at all.

I beg to differ. But whats the point. There is no doubt that you and i have different knowledge about knowledge.

I know that you dont know what your talking about. You have already proved it to me. And i have even proved that to you, by answering all your questions. I am not the one who is trying to save face. I am trying to help you save yours. But your such a fool. I am guessing your a young boy. Because that's the only indications of proof you have given so far.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 08:37 AM
Your condescending attitude makes it clear that you are sloppily trying to cover for your poor understanding of science. It's evident that you are a teenager with attitude and little education.

Can you explain why frequencies is a dimension? Please use math to remove your propensity for word salad.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:52 AM
I'm noticing a trend emerge. Ashanu90, why is it that you start anti-creation/pro-evolution threads and then abandon them? There must be at least 3 or 4 or 9 other threads that you've started over the years, and once people start taking you to task, you disappear from your own threads. Is your position in the debate so weak that you can't articulate a response? Or is the issue really unimportant to you?

I'm wondering why it is that I, or anyone, should continue to respond to your threads on this topic if you aren't serious about following through. I could be completely off base and wish to convey that I offer this observation with respect.

Perhaps I'm a little bit of an antique-style ATS user, but I've felt that if someone starts a thread on a controversial topic, they have some degree of responsibility for monitoring their thread and nurturing the debate. You've had some vigorous debate in this thread (and others), but where do you want to take things from this point, given what others have contributed?

You have chaos symbols all over your avatar. Isn't the very nature of chaos a lack of order? In what ways are your beliefs in evolution consistent with your advocacy of chaos?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by MKULTRA]

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:39 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
Your condescending attitude makes it clear that you are sloppily trying to cover for your poor understanding of science. It's evident that you are a teenager with attitude and little education.

Can you explain why frequencies is a dimension? Please use math to remove your propensity for word salad.

Gesses, don't take water over your head.

First you have to figure out what when wrong the last time you asked a question.

You better get one thing straight at a time before you move on.

But this time i will ask the questions. And i will ask you just one.

What is the likeness between a absolute vacuum and absolute Zero?

I know you have to Google it. So take your time.

And than we can do some math afterwords if you like. But you have to prove to me that your not wasting my time. Because i am getting the impression that you are.

If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?

What do numbers represent?

I would really like to see your numbers that prove that it ain't a dimension. Your mathematical symbols and you answer will give you away dude.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by spy66

Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.

If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?

No. Just show the math.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:29 PM
reply to post by Hydroman

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by FearNoEvil

I believe fallen angels had sex with earth women and their offspring were giants. I think the following generations of these giants could account for the fossils.

Sexless beings have penises? I guess they're not sexless after all.

Where did you get the idea they were sexless?

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:38 PM
Us good'ol boy creationists have it right I'll tell yall what. the devil he try to make yall beleive that christains are dum and not no stuff, but i tell yall what - God talks to Texas and shines down to us that we are his favorite. Dont mess with Texas, republicans, or are bibles. Lord jesus yall know he loves us good'ol boys the most, thats jus the facts.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:44 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66

Absolute zero and absolute vacuum are completely different concepts.

If i have to use math to prove that a frequency is a dimension. Ain't that proof enough that it would be a dimension?

No. Just show the math.

Generally if someone is right about a subject they wouldn't have a problem proving they are right. If they have to give an excuse, then it's safe to say they don't know what they are talking about.

Stop using absolute zero to justify your point. It has to deal with temperature plain and simple; nothing more, nothing less. You can't use it to rationalize any other concept.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 02:56 PM
reply to post by novastrike81

This is the question posed by spy66. I am addressing his question.

What is the likeness between a absolute vacuum and absolute Zero?

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:17 PM
reply to post by ashanu90

ashanu90,

Can you provide links to authentic photographs of the fossils of these “neanderthal, homo erectus, homo georgicus, homo antecessor, homo sapiens idaltu, homo ergaster, homo habilis, and many more” that you asked us to explain?

Please do not post links to artist or sculpture renditions. Please post links to the actual fossils that you asked us to explain.

I have many questions about the THEORY of evolution. Yes that’s right, macro evolution is ONLY A THEORY. If you are fully convinced that macro evolution is true then macro evolution is your faith. Faith is to believe in something that has not yet been proven. Therefore, all the Creationist bashers are hypocrites. They bash others for not having proof but they don’t have proof either.

Here’s a link for you… Mr. Dawkins

Man has wasted billions trying to prove God does not exist. Think of all the hungry children we could have fed.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:38 PM

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by novastrike81

This is the question posed by spy66. I am addressing his question.

What is the likeness between a absolute vacuum and absolute Zero?

Well that is easy. Absolute Vacuum is a theoretical philosophy that pressurized gases can reach zero. It has never been observed in science though so it's just one of those things scientist like to talk about on their free time, I guess.

Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which entropy would reach its minimum value. The laws of thermodynamics state that absolute zero cannot be reached because this would require a thermodynamic system to be fully removed from the rest of the universe.

So I guess the only likeness they have is that they can reach a value of zero.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by FearNoEvil

Once again a scientific theory is different from the common layman definition of theory. Evolution is a fact, it is the mechanisms of evolution that are theoretical still. Evolution can be and has been observed in the real world, whereas the existence of a god that created everything has not. That is why evolution is science and creationism is faith.

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by FearNoEvil

Once again a scientific theory is different from the common layman definition of theory. Evolution is a fact, it is the mechanisms of evolution that are theoretical still. Evolution can be and has been observed in the real world, whereas the existence of a god that created everything has not. That is why evolution is science and creationism is faith.

No one has observed a dog evolve into a cat or a reptile into a bird; take your pick. That's the point he was trying to make which is macro-evolution. If you believe we came about by chance and random probabilities that's more a leap of faith than believing a designer created it.

I know evolution exists I won't deny it but it's a degenerative form and no information in the genes has ever been noticed; only a loss of information.

[edit on 7-5-2010 by novastrike81]

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:36 PM

Originally posted by FearNoEvil

Where did you get the idea they were sexless?

Good question, I don't know.

But, if they do have sex organs, who are they intended to use them on?

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:24 PM

Originally posted by MKULTRA
I'm noticing a trend emerge. Ashanu90, why is it that you start anti-creation/pro-evolution threads and then abandon them? There must be at least 3 or 4 or 9 other threads that you've started over the years, and once people start taking you to task, you disappear from your own threads. Is your position in the debate so weak that you can't articulate a response? Or is the issue really unimportant to you?

I'm wondering why it is that I, or anyone, should continue to respond to your threads on this topic if you aren't serious about following through. I could be completely off base and wish to convey that I offer this observation with respect.

Perhaps I'm a little bit of an antique-style ATS user, but I've felt that if someone starts a thread on a controversial topic, they have some degree of responsibility for monitoring their thread and nurturing the debate. You've had some vigorous debate in this thread (and others), but where do you want to take things from this point, given what others have contributed?

You have chaos symbols all over your avatar. Isn't the very nature of chaos a lack of order? In what ways are your beliefs in evolution consistent with your advocacy of chaos?

[edit on 7-5-2010 by MKULTRA]

well i wouldnt say i abondoned my threads they just kind of died you know?
this one however i am sorry i have been a bit lazy lately and i have also had alot of things to take care of so i guess ill try to get more involved.
i wouldnt say i advocate chaos if you havent noticed i also have teh imperial eagle the necron symbol and the tau empire symbol. if anything i advocate warhammer 40k.
sometimes there needs to be chaos when order becomes too dull and mediocre to bare.
when you get bored dont you do something? thats small time chaos because your going against routine.
and routine can be misery sometimes dont you agree?
so i advocate small time chaos i guess.
sorry for the rant also i wont be on later tonight a freind wants to borrow our internet connection we got this wierd wireless thing you can take anywhere.

are there any questions of yours i didnt answer?

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:30 PM
just so every knows
i obviously believe in evolution
i do not believe in god
could they work hand in hand? its possible though i find it unlikely

i like the theory that we all carry the neanderthal genes
because long ago neanderthal and the modern man of the time met

some say the neanderthal died out because of war with our ancestors, or our ancestors were better hunters and the neanderthals had little food

however i think neanderthal and our ancestors "exchanged genes"
and if you dont understand that they had sex. we are the hybrid of those two races, so the neanderthal didnt die out in one sense
but thats the theory i like i dont state it as fact i learned my lesson from that a while ago

[edit on 7-5-2010 by ashanu90]

top topics

2