News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

Opinions on Misotheists

Started by ƵenKlassen, December 12, 2017, 10:45:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
Yes, and you get it ;-)  Any energy balance in a finite volume is temporary and approximate.  The mass loss due to thermal loss from a thermos bottle is very small ... but still non-zero.
No. A thermos cooling is not an example of energy conservation violation because all the energy leaving the boundary of the thermos is accounted for. Energy conservation is roughly speaking "energy in less energy out equals the change of the system's energy" â€" the thermal energy (and associated mass) lost by the thermos is exactly the energy that leaked out. The universe being open would do nothing to destroy energy conservation in GR, because an open system provides an avenue for energy to be gained or lost; it would be the energy in and energy out. The problems with with trying to find the integral energy in a system in GR is connected with the fact that energy is not a tensor in GR and does funny things in curved spacetime with a coordinate system that does not respect that curvature. Integrals, after all, are taken over finite volumes, which in curved manifolds can be quite hairy to deal with.

Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 08:52:48 AM
In the case of the energy/power 4-vector, variance of it we call rest mass vs kinetic energy.
There is no such tensor as the "energy/power 4-vector;" it's the energy-momentum 4-vector. The rest mass is actually an invariant of the system â€" it is the magnitude of the energy-momentum 4-vector, which is a tensor and does not depend on the coordinate system. The kinetic energy is an artifact of the frame of reference. It can vary from zero to any finite value depending on the velocity the particle has in a particular frame.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Loose language on my part, misreading on your part.  My original response had to do with the idea that "closed system" is a real thing.  Do you believe in "closed systems" or not?  Quoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone.  And again, this has to do with my correcting bad physics ... aka idealistic non-empirical stuff.  Has nothing to do with theism.

And yes, if you want to get into differential equations, tensor analysis etc .. we could, but it would boor people to tears.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
Loose language on my part, misreading on your part.  My original response had to do with the idea that "closed system" is a real thing.  Do you believe in "closed systems" or not?
Truly closed systems are hard to demonstrate, as they are required to satisfy conditions that are hard to verify. They also require conditions that make them fundamentally impossible to observe (every observation is an interaction with the system, and require exchange of energy), and as such are experimentally useless to anyone external to them. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. If the universe had truly no way of interacting with any other, external entity, and as such exchange energy with it, then by definition it would be a closed system. If you define the universe as everything that exists (as things you can interact with), then there can be no other object external to the universe for it to interact and exchange energy with, by definition. Ergo, if the universe is everything, it is closed. By definition.

Yes, that depends on how you define "universe." But given that definition, the universe would qualify and without possibility that it does not. By Hydra's definition of "universe," his statement would be absolutely correct.

Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
Quoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone.  And again, this has to do with my correcting bad physics ... aka idealistic non-empirical stuff.  Has nothing to do with theism.
Except you didn't correct any bad physics here. The way Hydra defined the universe meant that it couldn't be anything else but a completely closed system. Furthermore, the way you presented GR as not "conserving energy" was misleading. It was bad physics.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hydra009

Quote from: Baruch on December 17, 2017, 12:39:20 PMQuoting a simplistic notion that the universe is closed by definition, doesn't help anyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLu1cTKBspI

"simplistic"

Baruch

Pythagoras = everything is number, and all numbers are based on "1" ... so everything is based on "1" ... and accountants/statisticians are gods.

Sorry, oversimplification.  And it isn't a cosmos, it is a chaos.  The Greeks were wrong.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Oversimplification to the point of losing relevant detail doesn't make you look like a scholar.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on December 17, 2017, 10:00:35 PM
Oversimplification to the point of losing relevant detail doesn't make you look like a scholar.

i am not a scholar .. a demigod ;-)  And statistically speaking, you are wrong ;-))

Join me singing ... ignore the OP, ignore the OP ... is that a detail?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

We have a Known Universe of matter we can detect.  But there is more we cannot detect.  That farthest star we can see that is nearly as old as we think the universe is, is also seen  equally as far on the other direction.

This bothers me from time to time.

Inflation suggests that the universe is far larger than we think.  I hate "infinity".
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Baruch

Quote from: Cavebear on December 18, 2017, 08:04:14 AM
We have a Known Universe of matter we can detect.  But there is more we cannot detect.  That farthest star we can see that is nearly as old as we think the universe is, is also seen  equally as far on the other direction.

This bothers me from time to time.

Inflation suggests that the universe is far larger than we think.  I hate "infinity".

You are not alone hating "infinity" ... quite a few thinkers have done so.  I think detectable matter is really there, but until the science gets better, I am not fueling my car with dark energy and building it with dark matter.  What lies more than a billion light years away, doesn't concern me either.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 01:52:25 PM
You are not alone hating "infinity" ... quite a few thinkers have done so.  I think detectable matter is really there, but until the science gets better, I am not fueling my car with dark energy and building it with dark matter.  What lies more than a billion light years away, doesn't concern me either.

What?  No "God set up the light rays to arrive here JUST KNOW"? 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Munch

Quote from: Blackleaf on December 12, 2017, 11:11:49 AM
I disagree. It is perfectly possible to hate a fictional character, especially when you were raised to believe in them, trusted them fully, and wasted years of your life, energy, and money serving them. I can think of a few fictional characters I've never had an emotional attachment to that I hate anyway. Umbridge from Harry Potter, Kazeem from Skyrim, nearly all of the Lannisters from Game of Thrones (especially Cersei), just to name a few.

or..

'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Baruch

At one point, the early version of Mickey was banned in Denmark, because his thin limbs made him macabre.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:33:00 AM
i am not a scholar .. a demigod ;-)  And statistically speaking, you are wrong ;-))
This would be a lot more convincing if you demonstrated any competence in statistics or probability.

Quote from: Baruch on December 18, 2017, 06:33:00 AM
Join me singing ... ignore the OP, ignore the OP ... is that a detail?
Irrelevant detail. I did qualify that the detail has to be relevant. You said something about your vision going. It's getting worse, because you seem to not be able to read.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Baruch

Why should I claim, falsely, to have expertise in your field?  Speaking of statistics, if you use a coin, you are wrong, 50% of the time.  If you use a single dice, you are wrong (if "one" is right) 5/6th of the time.  In short ... use of statistics means that the odds of being right get asymptotically small as you increase your sophistication (particularly if this is sophism).
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Hakurei Reimu

Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 01:37:08 AM
Why should I claim, falsely, to have expertise in your field?
Dude, I have yet to see proof that you have expertise in any field involving engineering or science. I have seen competence from you in the case of biblical scholarship, but not in GR, not in engineering. Sorry.

I dare say you even take pride in not knowing statistics. To me, that is not a laudable trait, even less if you have any scientific or engineering background.

Quote from: Baruch on December 20, 2017, 01:37:08 AM
Speaking of statistics, if you use a coin, you are wrong, 50% of the time.  If you use a single dice, you are wrong (if "one" is right) 5/6th of the time.  In short ... use of statistics means that the odds of being right get asymptotically small as you increase your sophistication (particularly if this is sophism).
If I claim that the coin will land on head or tails, then I will be right 100% of the time. If I say a die will land on a face containing dots, then I will be right 100% of the time (assuming it's one with pips and not D&D dice). So you're wrong there â€" my chance of being wrong depends on what I will claim.

Now, if I use statistics to make some claim that is at risk, will I be wrong on occasion predicting the outcome of a particular event? Of course I will. It is in the nature of randomness that it will sometimes do something that is rare. But I can tell you how likely that will occur, and given enough data I can tell you that to whatever decimal place you desire, and I will be right. This is because the principle use of statistics is to tell you the general character of a population, not any individual event.

So, yeah. I will be wrong 50% of the time on a particular coin toss, but after thousands of tosses, I can tell you that the coin is fair and I can say I will be wrong that 50% with complete confidence. Same with the die. Again, whether I'm right or not depends on what I will claim. As you toss that coin more and more times, I can with increasing confidence tell you whether that coin is fair.

After all, casinos bank on the fact that their "customers" will lose over the long run. The gambling industry is not in any danger of going bankrupt.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu