Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

Hooboy Ush....please for the love of the one who created..learn to use the quote tags..reading your posts is the most mind numbing experience I've ever encountered!!!

Since what you posted was essentially was just rehashed tripe..and one line retorts..I just went ahead and responded to the main points..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, irrelevant babble from you. A scientists view on the theory of relativity has no bearing on how he views the scientific method.

Now you're just making stuff up..

Tell me Ush..how do you equate the statement..

whob: Many Scientists approach Science from a relativisitic perspective

to be the same as this statement

Ush's madeup accusation: Whob you are saying the scientific method is relative.

Many scientists accept evidence and theories that they get as being SUBJECTIVE(Susceptible to change)

Rather than OBJECTIVE(fundemental..starting point)

Excepting evidence/theory from a SUBJECTIVE viewpoint..is RELATIVISTIC..

How the hell can't you understand this?

I have no idea as to where your logic is coming from..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Science is an attempt to discover facts, but scientific theory can never be certain. Scientists don't deny absolutes exist, they just deny our capacity to be sure we have gotten them right, so instead we aim for a 'best-we-can-do' approach

Read that properly, Science WANTS to discover facts, but effectively admits that it cannot, so it oes for that approach I mentioned.

Not being able to spot that simple point I made and to try and point this out as a contradiction is a tactic that would only be employed by a moron. Well, if the shoe fits...

😆 😆

What you are stating is one big HUUUUGE mess of contradictions..

If a Scientist admits to not being able to discover FACTS..then he has essentially just discredited Science's ability to discover ANYTHING. It would be a fruitless endeavor for him to even continue being a Scientist..because guess what, he's already determined that discovering TRUTH is an impossibility.

As I have stated multiple times..In Science..One has to ASSUME that our logic behind certain things is 100 percent flawless..things like

RATIONALITY..

INTELLIGIBILITY..

UNIFORMITY...

Before we even begin to pursue Scientific Study. If we assumed these things to be flawed. Then it would be pointless to even study anything..we'd all just be sitting around twiddling our thumbs, depressed about the lack of purpose and ability to do understand anything in life.

Which I imagine is what most who have Relativistic beliefs probably do. If not..they are probably in some sort of delusional haze..they start making up stuff to give themselves purpose..such as being "Gods" themselves..Space Aliens coming to earth..Parallel Worlds..etc..

Anyway..moving on..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes it does mater, duh! You are claiming it is an absolute; we can't even begin to claim that if we do not understand it. Everything you say about it definitely working some way... is something we cn only assume, not prove.

Is there a force..that exists..that pulls us to the ground. Yes!!!
What is my proof? When someone jumps out a window..they fall to the ground. End of discussion.

Again Ush..where is the proof that someone can jump from a building and start flying up in the air?

The burden of proof lies on you my friend..not me..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
scepticism isn't TRYING to change anything or effect anything.

THANK YOU. So it doesn't have an effect on ANYTHING..thus making the whole damn point of scepticism moot. Scepticism..does not change REALITY. Being sceptical of gravity..does not give one the ability to fly.

Suggesting something can happen..does not mean it will happen, and does not disprove what we already know will happen!!!!

So Again..until you show that the possibility of something EXISTING, Then the whole "Sceptism" argument has no credibility to it. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again.. because you still are having trouble grapsing this simple concept. which before long I will only be able to ascribe to some form of mental defect... your 'evidnece' has been gathered by perceptions. Perceptions can be flawed. Therefore, that evidence has no more base value than a relatavist's opinion. It only has value if you ASSUME the tents on which that evidence is based on is correct

Again, the 'asbolute' part of that relies on assumptions0 at a basic level, that all you have seen is true, whereas all you have seen is perception and therefore might be false.

And you have no absolute way to say it will happen again; you can say, based on past obvservations (which a sceptic would doubt anyway) that is is PROBABLE, but science has no way to say it is certain.

Evidence Ush evidence..what don't you understand about this?!! I have evidence. People have jumped off of four story buildings..and fallen to the ground. That is not just my PERCEPTION. That is a FACT.

Again..what proof do you have of someone jumping off of a Building and flying?!!!

You can't just say..well it's possible..and then have no OBJECTIVE evidence to support the notion. That makes no damn sense.

But as I stated before...please feel free to try jumping off a building...when you are done conducting your experiment, give me the results of your studies. Were you able to fly? I'll be waiting for the answer.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Exactly..but you are alluding to the the ability to doubt/perceive/be
sceptical can change something."

Ush's Response..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is a lie. I am alluding no such thing.

Followed up by..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I don;t have to. All I have to do is doubt you and then you are stuck. Any attempt you make to say that that in itself can be [/B]doubted[/B] only feeds into the theory, and again you will not win.

Again..what the hell does your ability to doubt..disprove?!!

Does it change what as already been PROVEN? Does it somehow enable an individual to now fly up in the air.

Give me some concrete answers Ush..

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That is clearly a lie, as proven by your outright rejection of parallel universes and trying to lump them with alien conspiracy, despite the fact that you are not qualified and plenty of very qualified people are studying this subject very seriously.

Your closed-mindedness- probably based upon your religious dogma- is clear to all.

Hey Ush..I lost my sock..what Universe is it in? 😆 😆

Okay..I've refuted all the main points..everything you reposted was just the same rehashed tripe.

May the force be with you my friend.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
No, it is no semantic game. I did not give the details, but the mass is not conserved.

"The same amount we put in..will always be the same amount that we get out." is just an aproximation to make calculations easier.

In chemics they sometimes consider matter, as the number of particles, in this case you can say that matter is conserved, but if by matter you mean mass then it is not conserved.

That mass is not hidden somewhere or were lost in the reaction, it became energy, it is the energy that comes from the atomic bound.

My points exactly..nothing is lost from the reaction!!!

It is converted into something else..thus..the same amount that went in..is still the same amount that came out!!!

Regardless of whether or not the matter takes the new form of plasma/solid/liquid/gas/etc..it always exists!! Just because we can't find the remnants of it right away..doesn't mean its not there.

Thus as I have already stated..

A + B = C will always be true!!

The result C for the values given for A and B will then be a combination of matter in any of number of forms mentioned above..(ie gas/plasma/solid/liquid/etc)

So I guess we are in agreement..and regarding your "approximation" argument..of course its an approximation. It's difficult as hell to get the exact amount of everything being lost and gained in a chemical reaction.
That's why tests are done a number of times..to make sure the results are consistant..still..from our approximations..we will always find something that is 99.99 percent close to = C.

Understood?

Are you absolutely sure about that? 😆

I'm not........ 😇

Originally posted by debbiejo
I'm not........ 😇

Are you absolutely sure you are not absolutely sure? So, that proves that any silly thing I want. 😆

Not exactly though... 😄

Originally posted by debbiejo
Not exactly though... 😄

You have just contradicted yourself, therefore everything I say is right. 😆

Originally posted by whobdamandog
My points exactly..nothing is lost from the reaction!!!

It is converted into something else..thus..the same amount that went in..is still the same amount that came out!!!

Regardless of whether or not the matter takes the new form of plasma/solid/liquid/gas/etc..it always exists!! Just because we can't find the remnants of it right away..doesn't mean its not there.

Thus as I have already stated..

A + B = C will always be true!!

The result C for the values given for A and B will then be a combination of matter in any of number of forms mentioned above..(ie gas/plasma/solid/liquid/etc)

So I guess we are in agreement..and regarding your "approximation" argument..of course its an approximation. It's difficult as hell to get the exact amount of everything being lost and gained in a chemical reaction.
That's why tests are done a number of times..to make sure the results are consistant..still..from our approximations..we will always find something that is 99.99 percent close to = C.

Understood?

Now that looks like a semantic game... matter is solid/liquid/gas/plasma, light is not matter. Matter is not existing in a new form, it is another thing which is not matter. The only thing that was conserved is energy ; since it was matter before, then it became radiant energy after. Ask any nuclear physicist about that. nuclear bombs does only work because mass is not conserved, and I´m sure that Hiroshima, and Nagasaki doesn´t exist anymore.

Can you answer me if "Do you perceive these absolute truths ?"

What you answered me before was actually if "Can you prove these absolute truths without assuming a premise ?", and you answered :

I already have answered your question mutliple times. Nothing is assumed..we are subjected to various laws within this universe. That is a fact.

What basically means you think that "Nothing is assumed", therefore you assumed that "we are subjected to various laws within this universe. That is a fact."

That is a contradiction.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You have just contradicted yourself, therefore everything I say is right. 😆

Originally posted by debbiejo
Only your perception of it is right... 😉

See, you said the word right. That means I'm right. 😆

Not by my perceptions though... 😇

Actually, the series of equations A+B=C and A+B=C+D+E+F+G is possible. If D and E and F and G are equal in absolute value, but are the inverse of each other (-2, 2, etc.) then yes, that equation will work. In the same sense, A+B+D+E+F+G=A+B. Besides, you are speaking in variables which in their very definition vary. So when A+B=C, then if the value of A changes, then the equation is unbalanced.

Originally posted by crazylozer
Actually, the series of equations A+B=C and A+B=C+D+E+F+G is possible. If D and E and F and G are equal in absolute value, but are the inverse of each other (-2, 2, etc.) then yes, that equation will work. In the same sense, A+B+D+E+F+G=A+B. Besides, you are speaking in variables which in their very definition [b]vary. So when A+B=C, then if the value of A changes, then the equation is unbalanced. [/B]

Don't talk to us about unbalanced. This threads is nothing but unbalanced. 😆

To the unbalanced yes?.....It's only a persepective on who is not informed about reality.........Not meaning you btw....

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Now that looks like a semantic game... matter is solid/liquid/gas/plasma, light is not matter. Matter is not existing in a new form, it is another thing which is not matter. The only thing that was conserved is energy ; since it was matter before, then it became radiant energy after. Ask any nuclear physicist about that. nuclear bombs does only work because mass is not conserved, and I´m sure that Hiroshima, and Nagasaki doesn´t exist anymore.

How does this detract from the initial point? The point being..nothing is lost. You have readily admitted to this..and now you are just attempting to get into a game of semantics. In order to detract from what we already know to be TRUE.

The equation A + B = C Remains constant based on all the information you gave for the chemical reaction. Again..prove to me that it doesn't..and I guarantee you that you will get the Nobel Prize.

Can you answer me if "Do you perceive these absolute truths ?"

Your ASSUMING that ABSOLUTE TRUTHS are just are dependent upon YOUR Perceptions.

Now how about you answer my question..

GIVE ME PROOF that when you/Ush jump from a building..The power of your PERCEPTIONS will enable us to fly, instead of fall to the ground.

It's up to you to prove..that your PERCEPTIONS..have the ability to CHANGE REALITY.

If you cannot PROVE this, then you can perceive what you want to perceive all the live long day...it ain't going to change a damn thing.

What you answered me before was actually if "Can you prove these absolute truths without assuming a premise ?", and you answered :

Again..Nothing is just ASSUMED...it is PROVEN. It has been PROVEN if an individual jumps from a building..they will fall to the ground.

My premise has been substantiated by PROOF.
Your premis has not been substantiated by PROOF.

How the heck can you not see this?

We are subjected to natural laws such as gravity. There is PROOF of this. You all can joke all you want..but you haven't done anything to prove otherwise.

But again..my challenge to everyone of you tonight is to jump off a building. The first one of you who comes back and is able to PROVE that they were able to fly..based on the power of their PERCEPTION..gets a cookie...and maybe a Nobel Prize.

😆 😆

Perceptions are an individuals reality, which is showing proof in the science field....It's the attraction of ones own thoughts and what reality it evokes.....there are many things that I can perceive that you can't as do others.....As for god, and the Bible, you can't say that this is absolute....NO....too many variables in something so much in grandeur......The box it is in is too limited......There are no Absolutes only the perception in our field of what we think we know.....however, it doesn't prove you are correct with limited knowledge.....broaden your studies..........

Originally posted by whobdamandog
😆 😆
Is there a force..that exists..that pulls us to the ground. Yes!!!
What is my proof? When someone jumps out a window..they fall to the ground. End of discussion.

Again Ush..where is the proof that someone can jump from a building and start flying up in the air?

The burden of proof lies on you my friend..not me..

Actually, the burden of proof is on you. You are trying to prove that if someone jumps from a building they will not fly. Ush is simply saying that it is not necessarily the case. There is no grand 'law book' which states that somebody will fall to the ground when they jump from a window. I know you want to say God decides, but that's bull, and a completely different debate.

Let me give you an example you might be able to appreciate:
Back when Britain had an Empire, and it extended to Austrailia, the white upper class of society believed that the aboriginal peoples had a much lower level of intelligence. In fact, several attempts and plans were drawn up by which native children would be taken from their families and brought up in white society, where their native characteristics and stupidity would be bred out of them. In fact, as we now know, intelligence is not dependent on race. However, in the past, people certainly perceived an absolute rule in which whites were the cleverest people on earth, with rightful dominion over all other races.

I also have to point out that I don't think Ush is saying that gravity doesn't exist, just that it can be doubted.

Originally posted by crazylozer
Actually, the series of equations A+B=C and A+B=C+D+E+F+G is possible. If D and E and F and G are equal in absolute value, but are the inverse of each other (-2, 2, etc.) then yes, that equation will work. In the same sense, A+B+D+E+F+G=A+B. Besides, you are speaking in variables which in their very definition [b]vary. So when A+B=C, then if the value of A changes, then the equation is unbalanced. [/B]

Blah..Blah..

So basically what you are saying is that the if the sum of all values = D +E F...etc= 0..then the equation will be correct..

Guess what 0 means? Nothing..it means that Nothing is there!!!

Zero has no true value!!!

😆 😆

So you can essentially disregard "0" being there..because 0 represents..

DUH..DUH..DUH..DUH..

NOTHING!!! 😆

Anyway..assuming that we do have the number 0..then..we could then add this to the equation if you like..

A + B = C + 0 + 0 + 0 +

kind of silly and pointless though..you guys and your semantics..what would you do without them..

🙄

And what if a person has the gift of Telepathy, what does that do to your perception of what reality is?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Your ASSUMING that ABSOLUTE TRUTHS are just are dependent upon YOUR Perceptions.

Now how about you answer my question..

GIVE ME PROOF that when you/Ush jump from a building..The power of your PERCEPTIONS will enable us to fly, instead of fall to the ground.

It's up to you to prove..that your PERCEPTIONS..have the ability to CHANGE REALITY.

If you cannot PROVE this, then you can perceive what you want to perceive all the live long day...it ain't going to change a damn thing.

I think my example shows that people's perceptions have changed the 'reality' of rules people believed were absolute.

Again..Nothing is just ASSUMED...it is PROVEN. It has been PROVEN if an individual jumps from a building..they will fall to the ground.

...

But again..my challenge to everyone of you tonight is to jump off a building. The first one of you who comes back and is able to PROVE that they were able to fly..based on the power of their PERCEPTION..gets a cookie...and maybe a Nobel Prize.

😆 😆

That laughing thing just makes you look immature. Perhaps you'll stop it. And the '...' makes it look like an incoherent argument.

Nobody is saying that gravity doesn't exist. Nobody here holds that view, whob. Maybe you'll understand if someone else says it to you. It was purely an example. The only reason you believe somebody will fall when they leap from a window is because whenever you have seen (a perception) someone jump from a window, or heard (another) about someone that has, they have fallen to the ground,.

I could equally have only seen dog shit on the ground on the pavement. If nobody had ever told me otherwise, but had instead only told me of their experiences when they've seen dog shit on the pavement, I might assume that dogs only shit on the pavement.

Any premise can be doubted