Expanding universe?

[Welshidiot]

Indeed. Whenever you see an ellipsis, look for the lie hidden behind it.

Apart from the times where an ellipsis is used in place of text that isn't relevant to the topic, or when it's just a........lengthy pause.

We must always be wary of sweeping generalisations.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Indeed. Whenever you see an ellipsis, look for the lie hidden behind it.

Apart from the times where an ellipsis is used in place of text that isn't relevant to the topic, or when it's just a........lengthy pause.

We must always be wary of sweeping generalisations.

I didn't say that the ellipsis always hides a lie, I said you should always look for the lie behind it. A subtle distinction, but an important one.

 

[Welshidiot]

I didn't say that the ellipsis always hides a lie, I said you should always look for the lie behind it.

Yes, you said "look for the lie", not "look for a lie".

"The" implies that there is a lie to be found.

 

[Deleted member 619]

I didn't say that the ellipsis always hides a lie, I said you should always look for the lie behind it.

Yes, you said "look for the lie", not "look for a lie".

"The" implies that there is a lie to be found.

Bollocks. It implies that there might be one, as the use of the definite article always indicates. There may indeed be more than one, or there may be none at all. If the implication were true that the use of the definite article implies existence, then what would be the point of looking?

Would you contend, following your statement to its logical conclusion, that the god described in the bible exists?

Of course you wouldn't, because your appraisal of the sentence is horribly wide of the mark.

 

[Welshidiot]

..., you said "look for the lie", not "look for a lie".

"The" implies that there is a lie to be found.

Bollocks. It implies that there might be one, as the use of the definite article always indicates. There may indeed be more than one, or there may be none at all. If the implication were true that the use of the definite article implies existence, then what would be the point of looking?

Would you contend, following your statement to its logical conclusion, that the god described in the bible exists?

Of course you wouldn't, because your appraisal of the sentence is horribly wide of the mark.

Definite article.
A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified.

Indefinite article.
An indefinite article indicates that its noun is not a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker is mentioning for the first time, or its precise identity may be irrelevant or hypothetical, or the speaker may be making a general statement about any such thing.

On the basis of those definitions I'll stick with my original statement.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Of course you will, dear, because you ignored the relevant details of the post, preferring instead to concentrate on an argumentum ad lexicum that's reasonably trivial to refute:

http://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/determiners-and-quantifiers/definite-article

Note the second reason given for using the definite article, which gels well enough with my usage.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

 

[Pulsar]

Flat spacetime, otherwise known as Minkowski space, is indeed non-Euclidian. You can find evidence for this everywhere on the internet and in any relativity text book. What defines "flat" is the Riemann curvature tensor.

If you're so keen to be pedantic, then you should know that a flat Friedmann-Lemaà®tre-Robertson-Walker metric is not the same as a Minkowski metric. The latter is static, the former isn't.

No, it's not. 5 minutes reading about quantum mechanics will show as much.

What? How completely silly. Quantum mechanics is represented mathematically. If quantum mechanics is not logical, then it has to be because mathematics is not logical.

Quantum mechanics has led to the most accurate prediction ever made by man. The anomalous magnetic dipole moment of the electron. According to you, this, as well as every other accomplishment from quantum mechanics, is just plain luck, because quantum mechanics is apparently, not logical.

Australopithecus obviously means that QM is counter-intuitive. Stop being an ass.

 

[Welshidiot]

...(flounder)...

We've been off topic long enough. Bye.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Wow, what a fabulous riposte! I wish my debating skills were as finely-honed as yours. :roll:

 

[australopithecus]

Excuse me for interrupting your athiesm, but:

Excuse me for elucidating your dishonest quote-mine, but:

The fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres." -Albert Einstein

Shall we take a look at what Einstein actually said?

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"--cannot hear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims

So it was actually a statement regarding the imposition of human aims and concerns on his science.

Go ahead, lie if you want to, but many here are more than familiar with Einstein's work, and will expose your lies with ease, and will treat your fuckwittery with precisely the scorn and derision it deserves.

Why do the credulous need to lie to support their idiocy?

 

[>< V ><]

So it was actually a statement regarding the imposition of human aims and concerns on his science.

Go ahead, lie if you want to, but many here are more than familiar with Einstein's work, and will expose your lies with ease, and will treat your fuckwittery with precisely the scorn and derision it deserves.

Why do the credulous need to lie to support their idiocy?

Replacing the pronoun "they" with the noun it is referencing, "the fanatical atheists", is hardly a lie. I purposefully posted that quote, because I knew it would be hard for atheists like you to swallow. Because a main focus of your atheistic dogma is that everyone else is not reasonable, not being rational, not being logical. And you can't wrap your head around how the two giants of science, Einstein and Newton, weren't atheist.

What you understand is that creationism is stupid. That many things in the Bible are stupid and this forms, I bet, almost your entire basis for atheism. As Einstein most likely meant in his quote, you're more concerned with denegrating your former master than seeing what other reasons there are to "believe" that are not based in religion.

Your basis for atheism certainly isn't based upon Einstein, Newton, Schrodinger, Planck or Maxwell. It's based upon how to debunk people like William Lane Craig. It's based upon how to debunk creationism and other religious claims. As if the talk of God requires a religious component. Most atheists cannot separate the two, which is why many simplistically believe debunking William Lane Craig and other religious claims is a debunk of God.

If the day comes when you can separate God from religion, will be the day you begin to understand how many physicists, including the giants, perceive God.

That is how I understand Einsteins quote.

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations." - Albert Einstein

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Misquoting Einstein are we?

"I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things"
http://books.google.pt/books?id=5qWP1SEYhawC&pg=PA153&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Why the hell did you taught you could have pulled that shit here?


You are young and to naive, and I tell you this, the day you try to find God without the influence of religion is the day you will realise that it is man made.