Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

The problem with lying is if you lie most of the time pathologically, you have difficulties keeping your stories straight. From the Religious thread.

http://216.92.33.211/forum/printthre...pp=40&page=276

To Greyfox.....


http://216.92.33.211/forum/printthre...p=15&page=1860


http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s....php?p=2303347


Moral of the story is be carefull who you call "you deceiver"

All the stuff you quoted and not once did I say that there was a cause and effect relationship between the Past and the Future. You sure waste a lot of time and bandwith coming up with absolutely nothing.

Also, "influence" and "cause" are not synonymous.

Now answer my questions in 6428 and 6429.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Dunb_Car

You want actual quotes. Read my 11-part series on the Trinity in the Universe.

No, you claimed you said it. You did not. Find it.

Box, if you want to search previous conversations, and there is a huge backlog considering both religious threads, the search engines on PA are not very good. Google does a much better job if you enter the appropriate criteria.Starting with Paceadvantage, then the name of the thread and specific terms used.

That is why you can not do a decent job following up on my criticism of your non-Einstein statements you never said.

You do not remember your statements and stilted proclamations.
Careful. Alzheimer is progressive.

[hcap]

Also, "influence" and "cause" are not synonymous.

Why not? As I pointed out, swinging an ax and chopping down a tree, sure sounds like the ax was doing a whole lot of influencing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Why not? As I pointed out, swinging an ax and chopping down a tree, sure sounds like the ax was doing a whole lot of influencing.

Look up the definitions of the two terms.

But even IF I were to grant you this argument...you still need to explain that in terms of your "causal arrow of time". You need to answer the questions in 6428.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Einstein disagrees with you. And I have often stated to you and Actor and also in my 11-part Trinity series that the universe MUST consist of Space, Matter and Time. Neither one of these components can exist apart from the other. Therefore, the universe cannot exist apart from all three.

I think it's cool that Einstein and I are on the same page.

Oh yeah..."empty space" is an idea that was conceived inside someone's equally empty head. It's just another pop science item that sells magazines.

Perhaps you should try telling the truth and say you don't know the answer. Anybody gets to talk about anything on the threads. It's not your thread. So either answer the question or admit you are just talking through your hat about Einstein.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Perhaps you should try telling the truth and say you don't know the answer. Anybody gets to talk about anything on the threads. It's not your thread. So either answer the question or admit you are just talking through your hat about Einstein.

What does your question have to do with Time? Or more specifically with the direction of the "arrow of time"?

An awful lot of stupid questions and non sequiturs are brought into these discussions in order to create rabbit trails that distract and/or deflect. I don't do rabbit trails.

[bpiets]

time , space, matter, etc all works together and 'i' have found many a 'rabbit trail' finds the 'rabbit' as in 'food' and in this case 'food for thought ' that may have been missed previously as in 'historical fact '...lol..other 'wise' how wouls any one progress etc...lol..99 percent of every thing scientific has been inproved upon and the 'math' that is mostly theory etc has yet to be proven....lol..all of it mostly generated by ' allowing the nature of things to teach you '...or reasoning it out for your self , or the best way is to ' let God teach you '....and when the time is right along his time line , then we will have the answers that many died trying to figure out the ' this & that '...lol..hope that helps find solutions rather that deviating from the subject matters straight line of thought but all matter , time, space , etc come together at some points, and at many various times in space etc...lol..have a great day folks...ssssaaaaayyyyy, any one have any winning nags they want to share with us on those grounds of '' time , space and the matter of collecting pay dirt at the window ????...

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You want actual quotes. Read my 11-part series on the Trinity in the Universe.

Screw you bunky. I've read it. A treasure trove of unsupported evidence-lacking dogmatic pseudo-scientific bullshit.

You proclaimed...

Originally Posted by babbling car

But according to the Theory of Relativity, if matter (and its motion) disappeared, there would no longer be any space or time.

How long have I maintained this very same position? Even as recently as 2 or 3 months ago, I asked you what would happen if all Matter vanished from the universe?

You never asked that.

If you did, where is it specifically? Quote it please.

First you lied thru your teeth on just how confused you are on cause and effect, ducking the causal arrow of time as a rebuttal to your absurd ass backwards time nonsense. Now you are misrepresenting what you do not understand about the properties and varieties of matter, energy and space in a pathetic attempt to claim Einstein, who you claimed was wrong in many things, now supports your abject confusion.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Screw you bunky. I've read it. A treasure trove of unsupported evidence-lacking dogmatic pseudo-scientific bullshit.

You proclaimed...You never asked that.

If you did, where is it specifically? Quote it please.

First you lied thru your teeth on just how confused you are on cause and effect, ducking the causal arrow of time as a rebuttal to your absurd ass backwards time nonsense. Now you are misrepresenting what you do not understand about the properties and varieties of matter, energy and space in a pathetic attempt to claim Einstein, who you claimed was wrong in many things, now supports your abject confusion.

I proclaimed and asked. I asked you not too long ago what would happen if all the planets, stars, comets, asteroids, suns and moons disappeared from the heavens --how would you know that space is empty? Naturally, you never answered the question. What is else is new?

And you're doing all the ducking around here. Answer the questions in 6428 & 29.

Did you know that before the sun rose over the eastern horizon this morning, tomorrow would become this morning? And now that the morning here, it is proceeding along its path to become this afternoon. And this afternoon will further continue on the path to its graveyard in the West to become this evening. And this evening will eventually become yesterday. Kool, huh?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I proclaimed and asked. I asked you not too long ago what would happen if all the planets, stars, comets, asteroids, suns and moons disappeared from the heavens

You never ever did. Quote it

You said we could not perceive space unless matter was in it.
We showed you how wrong that was.

We had a lengthy discussion where we both, you and I, stipulated to the scientific evidence that in interstellar space the average density of matter was approx. 1 atom per cubic centimeter. I proved to you mathematically the majority of space within that cubic centimeter was absolutely devoid of matter.

Actor told you in one atom was mostly empty space. We even told you radiation, a form of matter could travel thru empty space and you said because the radiation was emitted by matter even if light years away, across the galaxy still proved that the cubic centimeter we were discussing devoid of matter, was therefore not empty.

I even brought up virtual particles as maybe a way to support your contention.

The space time Einstein refereed to is curved by matter. So yes the universe requires matter. But there are portions that exist without matter unless you consider virtual particles which are in a constant f lux of creation and annihilation.


If you want bunky I will dig up those discussions when I have more free time. No, not "used" or "unused"

[boxcar]

[quote=hcap;2307130]You never ever did. Quote it

You said we could not perceive space unless matter was in it.
We showed you how wrong that was.

We had a lengthy discussion where we both, you and I, stipulated to the scientific evidence that in interstellar space the average density of matter was approx. 1 atom per cubic centimeter. I proved to you mathematically the majority of space within that cubic centimeter was absolutely devoid of matter.

Actor told you in one atom was mostly empty space. We even told you radiation, a form of matter could travel thru empty space and you said because the radiation was emitted by matter even if light years away, across the galaxy still proved that the cubic centimeter we were discussing devoid of matter, was therefore not empty.

The "majority of space" is not all space. Nor is "mostly empty space" all space. This is called equivocation.

Remove all matter from the universe -- there is no universe. Einstein agrees with me. Kool, huh?

And, yeah...you can't have Energy without Matter. Elementary stuff, Dr. Watson.

The only empty space to be be found around here is between Dumpty's and your ears.

I even brought up virtual particles as maybe a way to support your contention.

The space time Einstein refereed to is curved by matter. So yes the universe requires matter. But there are portions that exist without matter unless you consider virtual particles which are in a constant f lux of creation and annihilation.

Of course, there are "portions that exist without matter". Tell me something I don't know.

If you want bunky I will dig up those discussions when I have more free time. No, not "used" or "unused"

Spare me the drivel. It's all EQUIVOCATION -- "mostly", "majority", "portions" -- all of which do not equate to 100% empty space. Remove all Matter from the universe, the universe ceases to exist.

Now, answer my questions in 6428 & 29.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by bullshit_car

Of course, there are "portions that exist without matter". Tell me something I don't know.

You dented it over and over. And specifically denied we could perceive space devoid of matter

You did not think there was space devoid of matter and we could perceive it despite what you proclaim now.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You dented it over and over. And specifically denied we could perceive space devoid of matter

You did not think there was space devoid of matter and we could perceive it despite what you proclaim now.

You're shot. Of course, there is plenty of "empty space" out there. There has to be to accommodate all that Matter in Motion. How could there be Motion if all the celestial bodies are butted up against one another with no room to move? But saying this is far different than postulating Space without any Matter in it at all.

Soooo...your great argument about "portions" of space being empty is beyond dumb. Beyond ridiculous.

[hcap]

Meaningless.

Planets, asteroids, moons and comets travel through space that contain relatively more matter than interstellar space. The solar environment has all sorts of moving bodies that move not impeded by low density matter.

And of course as mentioned interstellar space is not totally devoid of matter, and obviously stars and galaxies move thru interstellar space. So your nonsense about knowing any of this stuff is mostly nonsense

Why don't you babble less about your pseudo-scientific theories and babble more about what your famous for.

Pseudo-religious theories

[boxcar]

[QUOTE=hcap;2307157]Meaningless.

Planets, asteroids, moons and comets travel through space that contain relatively more matter than interstellar space. The solar environment has all sorts of moving bodies that move not impeded by low density matter.

And of course as mentioned interstellar space is not totally devoid of matter, and obviously stars and galaxies move thru interstellar space. So your nonsense about knowing any of this stuff is mostly nonsense

(emphasis mine)

So...none of Space is "totally devoid of matter", correct?

Also, answer my questions in 6428 & 29.