Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again you are trying to redefine my term. I never used the word universe I said earth. When I say universal I mean widespread, world-wide.
[/COLOR]
Since you're backpedaling now in a desperate attempt to not look like a baboon with your "universal = the Earth", you're still incorrect.
Is gravity the same across the Earth? No.
Basteria is also living, this is another fact you're incorrect about.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again you are trying to redefine my term. I never used the word universe I said earth. When I say universal I mean widespread, world-wide.
You are using the word universal to mean world wide, while gravity is something that is universal (the other meaning of the word). Your use of terms like universal are confusing when talking about gravity.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Come with a stronger example of life existing without oxygen like an animal or insect.
You are saying that bacteria are not a good example, and I am saying that you are wrong. Please show me how bacteria are a weak example.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You are trying to find a loophole by redefining the subject under discussion with the whole it depends what you are argument. That's what I mean by you are attempting to redefine my terms and digress the issue altogether.I am not referring to subatomic particles but to you personally. You cannot be in two places at the same time.
This is an absolute.
This is not an absolute. We live in the world of the big and the world of the small all at the same time. I believe that there is a way to be in two places at the same time. The evidence is that in quantum mechanics two entangled partials can be in two places at the same time. If this is true in the subatomic world, then there is a possibility that it is true for the world we live in.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It doesn't matter if time is fabric or whether time dilation occurs that is irrelevant and more proof that you are attempting to digress.
Incorrect. You are saying that time is absolute, and only travels in one direction. I am showing you that time can be folded like a fabric. Inside of a black hole, time maybe moving in the opposite direction. We really don’t know yet, but we do know one thing; time is not absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Again, nothing that you have stated is able to negate my point that you cannot revert to your infancy (literally) which proves that time is linear.
You are making an assumption. There are places in the universe where this maybe possible, however, probable not survivable. Your understanding of time is too simple.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Telling me that someone on a mountain will age slower does not disprove my point that time does not travel in reverse because their is still increase in age due to forward movement as it were of linear time of the subject under discussion.
There are places in the universe where time maybe going in the opposite direction.
Originally posted by Robtard
JIA,Since you're backpedaling now in a desperate attempt to not look like a baboon with your "universal = the Earth", you're still incorrect.
Forgive me...I am trying uber much to hold in my laughter. Not at you just at how this discussion has gone.
Again, forgive me....
Robtard...I am not addressing the measurable or quantifiable impact of gravity (that is not the issue here). I am simply underscoring and talking about the existence of gravity.
Gravity exists.
It is a phenomenon that is at least world-wide in scope (it affects all seven continents and everything in between including you and me).
And yes it is absolute.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
This is not an absolute. We live in the world of the big and the world of the small all at the same time. I believe that there is a way to be in two places at the same time. The evidence is that in quantum mechanics two entangled partials can be in two places at the same time. If this is true in the subatomic world, then there is a possibility that it is true for the world we live in.
however, at least how the current understanding goes, such quantum states are very unstable, and something in the real world, even if only a single particle, would be interacting with far too many other particles and would become desynchronized through interactions. If this is applied to all particles in a living organism, it is almost assured that the particles themselves would desynchronize the other particles.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Forgive me...I am trying uber much to hold in my laughter. Not at you just at how this discussion has gone.Again, forgive me....
Robtard...I am not addressing the measurable or quantifiable impact of gravity (that is not the issue here). I am simply underscoring and talking about the existence of gravity.
Gravity exists.
It is a phenomenon that is at least world-wide in scope (it affects all seven continents and everything in between including you and me).
And yes it is absolute.
Now you're deftly changing your argument to fit the evidence shown to you, again.
What is gravity like at the very center of the Earth?
Originally posted by inimalist
however, at least how the current understanding goes, such quantum states are very unstable, and something in the real world, even if only a single particle, would be interacting with far too many other particles and would become desynchronized through interactions. If this is applied to all particles in a living organism, it is almost assured that the particles themselves would desynchronize the other particles.
I agree that it is very unlikely, however, the door is still open. Current theories cannot rule out the possibility 100%, as unlikely as it maybe. I hope I see a grand unification theory within my life time. That should answer the question.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree that it is very unlikely, however, the door is still open. Current theories cannot rule out the possibility 100%, as unlikely as it maybe. I hope I see a grand unification theory within my life time. That should answer the question.
true, and I'm certainly not accusing you of this, however interpreting QM does leave a lot of doors open, a lot of very silly doors imho.
ha, I'm sure its come up before, but I am so skeptical of QM.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are using the word universal to mean world wide, while gravity is something that is universal (the other meaning of the word). Your use of terms like universal are confusing when talking about gravity.You are saying that bacteria are not a good example, and I am saying that you are wrong. Please show me how bacteria are a weak example.
This is not an absolute. We live in the world of the big and the world of the small all at the same time. I believe that there is a way to be in two places at the same time. The evidence is that in quantum mechanics two entangled partials can be in two places at the same time. If this is true in the subatomic world, then there is a possibility that it is true for the world we live in.
Incorrect. You are saying that time is absolute, and only travels in one direction. I am showing you that time can be folded like a fabric. Inside of a black hole, time maybe moving in the opposite direction. We really don’t know yet, but we do know one thing; time is not absolute.
You are making an assumption. There are places in the universe where this maybe possible, however, probable not survivable. Your understanding of time is too simple.
There are places in the universe where time maybe going in the opposite direction.
It does not matter what you say I stated my stance and have not digressed. I gave you clear understanding of what I mean and still mean.
If you want to keep talking to me about could'of's, would'of's, wishes, maybe's and should'of's then knock yourself out.
I am not talking about the unknown or shifting the discussion to outerspace (you have a history of doing this when your argument has no merit).
Gravity is universal. This is an absolute.
You cannot physically be in two places at the same time. This is also absolute.
Time is linear. Another absolute.
I purposely left out the bacteria one because it is still a weak example of life.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I purposely left out the bacteria one because it is still a weak example of life.
And yet you still haven't justified why this is. Again, they display all the characteristics that are required to be considered a living organism, the same as you, me, plants, etc. etc. It's pretty much a matter of established fact vs. your own opinion. If you want your opinion to have any merit whatsoever, then you must explain it, and bear the scrutiny of its content by those who hear it. If you're afraid to elaborate on it, then that's your own problem, but I can imagine why you would choose not to elaborate on it, based on the glimmering knowledge of biology you've already shown
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
It does not matter what you say I stated my stance and have not digressed. I gave you clear understanding of what I mean and still mean.
So, no one can question you?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If you want to keep talking to me about could'of's, would'of's, wishes, maybe's and should'of's then knock yourself out.
I would characterize your points as could'of's, would'of's, wishes, maybe's and should'of's.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I am not talking about the unknown or shifting the discussion to outerspace (you have a history of doing this when your argument has no merit).
You are the one talking about gravity and Einstein.
I thought baring false witness was a sin.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Gravity is universal. This is an absolute.
And your point about gravity was?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You cannot physically be in two places at the same time. This is also absolute.
It is high improbable, but not absolute. Many improbable things happen in the universe.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Time is linear. Another absolute.
Like I said, space-time maybe folded back onto its self inside a black hole. That means that there maybe places in the universe were time goes backward. The direction of time is not an absolute.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I purposely left out the bacteria one because it is still a weak example of life.
Please explain!
Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're deftly changing your argument to fit the evidence shown to you, again.What is gravity like at the very center of the Earth?
You just are not getting it. I said at the outset of this discussion that gravity is universal, meaning that it is at least world-wide in scope.
That is all I wanted to convey.
Asking me what it's like at the very center of the earth has no bearing on this discussion because I am not talking about within the earth. Question: do you live within the earth? No? So why would you ask me a question like:
What is gravity like at the very center of the Earth?
That is just as bad as trying to employ quantum mechanics in reference to humans occupying space in more than one place simultaneously.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You just are not getting it. I said at the outset of this discussion that gravity is universal, meaning that it is at least world-wide in scope.That is all I wanted to convey.
Asking me what it's like at the very center of the earth has no bearing on this discussion because I am not talking about within the earth. Question: do you live within the earth? No? So why would you ask me a question like:
What is gravity like at the very center of the Earth?
That is just as bad as trying to argue to employ quantum mechanics in reference to humans occupying space in more than one place simultaneously.
He and I are simply disputing your use of the term absolute. Please do not call something absolute that is not.