who created god

Started by Shakyamunison51 pages
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Its definitely more than one, but yea i will let you know.

Until you find one, the number is zero.

Man created god

/thread

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Until you find one, the number is zero.

Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
Newton's Laws of Motion.

these are two of many that i believe will be rewritten that i can think of now, but i cant be 100% sure until a week or so where we will be more informed of It.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
Newton's Laws of Motion.

these are two of many that i believe will be rewritten that i can think of now, but i cant be 100% sure until a week or so where we will be more informed of It.

Again, theories are not laws.

scientific law: A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met.

scientific theory: An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested.

http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

You will have to show me why Newton's Laws of Motion are not true.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again, theories are not laws.

scientific law: A logical, mathematical statement describing a consistency that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena when specific conditions are met.

scientific theory: An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested.

http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/res/res-glossary.html

You will have to show me why Newton's Laws of Motion are not true.

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.


its not completely wrong but has errors i believe but this link may help you .
http://www.iop.org/activity/education/Projects/Teaching%20Advanced%20Physics/Mechanics/newton/page_3829.html

You're going to have to point to where you think there is an error please?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
You're going to have to point to where you think there is an error please?
they will be teaching that next week, all they told us was there is an error, i tried to find a link on it and that's the best i could do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again, theories are not laws.

technically, a "law" in science is really just what people previously called theories.

all "laws" in science are subject to the same principles as theories, and all they do is model testable predictions. Differentiating between the two is irrelevant in modern science, and the terminology is a leftover of more archaic scientific philosophy (before modern science, people were obsessed with these immutable laws of the universe).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
scientific theory: A model which predicts the occurrence of specific natural phenomenon. Hypotheses are based on the specific predictions of these models. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested.

fixed because I'm a pedat

i'll help you point one out.... "nothing can travel faster then light".... ehhh.... kinda sorta... although light can't exceed FTL the universe can create an illusion to where it even tricks itself....

Light inside a blackhole is accelerated by centrifugal force to the outside observers if you could see light and the blackhole it would appear to speed up but inside the blackhole from the perspective of light it is still only moving at light speed 🤓 😖mart:

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
i'll help you point one out.... "nothing can travel faster then light".... ehhh.... kinda sorta... although light can't exceed FTL the universe can create an illusion to where it even tricks itself....

Light inside a blackhole is accelerated by centrifugal force to the outside observers if you could see light and the blackhole it would appear to speed up but inside the blackhole from the perspective of light it is still only moving at light speed 🤓 😖mart:

were did you get this Exactley? Im not saying its wrong but any links or anything? or are you currently in school?

why do i have to have gotten that piece of knowledge from an outside source. why cant i simply been smart enough to have come up with it on my own? when it comes to science theory the dumbest sci fi geek is just as likely and able to come up with a simple quantum physic mechanical idea based on observation of the real world and common sense.

i forgot how to post a vid here its bn too long but here is the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRWwI61so5Q

droolio

Originally posted by inimalist
technically, a "law" in science is really just what people previously called theories.

all "laws" in science are subject to the same principles as theories, and all they do is model testable predictions. Differentiating between the two is irrelevant in modern science, and the terminology is a leftover of more archaic scientific philosophy (before modern science, people were obsessed with these immutable laws of the universe).

fixed because I'm a pedat

I find it strange how you changed what I quoted from a Science dictionary.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I find it strange how you changed what I quoted from a Science dictionary.

weird. You'd think they'd know...

Originally posted by inimalist
weird. You'd think they'd know...

Or you could be wrong. 😛

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Or you could be wrong. 😛

the dictionary looks more like a site that explains jargon to the layman. not to sound arrogant or anything [sic] but I know I'm not wrong here

Originally posted by inimalist
the dictionary looks more like a site that explains jargon to the layman. not to sound arrogant or anything [sic] but I know I'm not wrong here

However, the web site aside, I was taught that the terms law and theory have a fundamental difference. Laws describe phenomena, while theories tell how/why these phenomena work. My point was that they have a different function. I was explaining this to someone who seemed to be getting them confused.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, the web site aside, I was taught that the terms law and theory have a fundamental difference. Laws describe phenomena, while theories tell how/why these phenomena work. My point was that they have a different function. I was explaining this to someone who seemed to be getting them confused.

I don't think they were though

A scientific law is merely something people called well established parts of theories. The laws of thermodynamics are better called the "theory of thermodynamics" or possibly "thermodynamic heuristics".

For instance, the Gestalt laws of perceptual categorization. They were scientific "Laws" that were eventually found to not be as absolute as the term "law" applies, and are now thought of as governing principles, but not immutable laws.

Thermodynamics would be the same, with the exception that it describes something that is likely constant everywhere in the universe. However, this does not mean that it must be, and that makes, in a strict philosophy of science sense, the term "law", as in immutable constant of the universe, inappropriate.

Like I said, I'm being pedantic

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think they were though

A scientific law is merely something people called well established parts of theories. The laws of thermodynamics are better called the "theory of thermodynamics" or possibly "thermodynamic heuristics".

For instance, the Gestalt laws of perceptual categorization. They were scientific "Laws" that were eventually found to not be as absolute as the term "law" applies, and are now thought of as governing principles, but not immutable laws.

Thermodynamics would be the same, with the exception that it describes something that is likely constant everywhere in the universe. However, this does not mean that it must be, and that makes, in a strict philosophy of science sense, the term "law", as in immutable constant of the universe, inappropriate.

Like I said, I'm being pedantic

Be pedantic with this:

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Newton's corpuscular theory of light.
Newton's Laws of Motion.

these are two of many that i believe will be rewritten that i can think of now, but i cant be 100% sure until a week or so where we will be more informed of It.

😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

That is wrong. It assumes, ignorantly, that mass is constant whereas we know that mass increases when an object is moving.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That is wrong. It assumes, ignorantly, that mass is constant whereas we know that mass increases when an object is moving.

I don't see how it is making that assumption.

go ahead and be technical. I might not understand you, but then I might.