So only one of Newton's laws applies to planet movement. you have simplified the problem greatly my friend, an unjust simplification that is equivalent to saying that the only reason a human can move is by intertial forces...I must wait around a little until I feel the next inertia coming to write some more.....! How about Newton's third law of motion with every action has a reaction, why is everybody only seeing the static aspect of that law, while it could easily be used as a dinamics law. Who said action and reaction must be static????
You're the one that is telling me that Newton's first law of inertia is that only law of dynamics.. You're the one saying that inertia is the only cause for planet movement....Those are not my words...I must assume from your words that other laws of physics don't apply to motion and thus must be viewed as static....
One of, not the only one. An object that is in motion tends to remain in motion. They all are dynamic laws, how matter behaves to outside forces. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html Maybe this will help.
Very very good......I must get you to say it though, you have to offer the information, I may not imply or assume here.... So we're talking about many laws of physics that all may apply together and are all interrelated. These many laws may all be used to describe something as little as the ant movement...... Planet movement is making me dizzy since it's still singing ring around the rosie, so do you agree that combined physics movement could be used to describe the movement of the ant.???
You'd probably have to use chemistry and biology as well to explain how that motion is made, but physics will describe the motion part.
Hey, for all we know, the Bible could have been just one huge exageration about this one guy who decided to some good around the desert.
My good friend Jaxom you are a genius..... So not only physics laws are involved, but chemistry laws, biology laws, ect..... I must be very ignorant Jaxom, may you explain to me exactly what is the relationship between the physics laws, biology laws, ect, ???? so I might start understanding how they interact in the little tiny ant..... Come on, the little tiny ant is awaiting our responce before it can dig another hole in my house foundation...just like the orbits are waiting and singing the ring around the rosie song....
Even if I could give a thorough lecture on how all the sciences are connected, and how they apply to the smallest creature, this isn't the appropriate place to do so. We've strayed far from the original point you brought up. Why don't you try and elaborate on your ideas of life and death being some type of cycle. That's where it all started... Unless you can tie in all this physics to the argument.
You have no trust in a woman Jaxom..Show me some trust man....My feelings are quite hurt... Anyways, my point will be made very very soon....We have already talked about the first law of physics and the second and third law of physics. We areed that in the smallest creature that exist, one law by itself is not valid....You agreed that not only that the law is invalid by itself but that other subjects come into play. Now I ask you simply to explain to me....Do you accept the presence of an ant as a fact????? DO you accept your own presence as a fact???? Of course yes right..... Well, by science standard, you have yourself told me that we are described by many many sciences and even arts if we look carefully. So I ask you what brings all the sciences and the arts together in such beauty and simplicity to make an ant operate. Should I be considered mad to accept the fact that the sciences work together while I can't see how they interrelate??? I'm seeing elephants and being a nasty Theist for questioning the big picture??? Do the sciences talk together and plan ahead how to come together and how to behave???? Do they have a secret meeting every night at Sciforum and debate how to make things work????What is this combining force in nature that is combining all the forces together and ensuring that all the sciences relate as a seemless web despite our erronous thoughts of them as independant diciplnes??? I'll tell you a little story Jaxom that really got me thinking. I'm trying to develop a model to descripe stream morphology. I applied to do a PHD within the civil engineering college. But soon enough I found that my topic is too big, searching for the answers took me to many other departments, and still I was confused. Too many disciplines, no connections, and this might be efficient for exact sciences that deal with production of cars, phones, all selleable items, but when it comes to understanding nature, environment, health, or even behavioral sciences, we are only in the business of putting bandages for solutions and not really addressing the root cause of the problem...... Subhan Allah, Allah Akbar. This was my point of the debate, So I digress and will respond to future questions or off topic questions.
heflores So what is the difference between you and my 2 year old daughter. You told me inertia makes the orbits revolve, my 2 year old would say god is making the orbit revolve. The difference is that your 2 year old is uneducated. However, one day your 2 year old will grow up, go to school and will learn that gods don't make the world go round. Once that happens, will you be prepared to explain why you fed 'ring_around_the_rosie' nonsense to your children all those years ?
You have it all wrong...The difference between you and my 2 year old is that you know a little bit and run with it like a mad man with no breaks, and cause more harm than your tiny educated head can capture, while she is as innocent as a rose. I hope she grows up to be like Tiassa...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
hi i am here to pick up the evidence. could someone please direct me towards the relevant post? thanks Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
My prince charming...Spookz.......Always guidng me and watching over my shoulder.....with his INVISIBLE strings Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
All of the sciences are intimately related, there is no division, except for the purposes of education and study. The main reason for this is there is so much scientific knowledge that no one person can come to learn all of it. Either you get a broad generalization or you specialize in a particular focus. Very rarely do you find people who can specialize in even two sciences and I've never come across anyone who can specialize in more than a few and remain current in all of them. Even those who specialize usually focus upon a particular aspect of that science. Ultimately, all of the interactions within the Universe boil down to various configurations of just four forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and gravity. Of course, working with such a complex interaction as the workings of a cell from the level of physics would be impossibly difficult. Instead, there are rules that are comprised of various standard interactions of these forces. Think of it like this; multiplication is really just addition: 2X5 = 2+2+2+2+2 Of course, having to add numbers would get very tedious and difficult when we start working with more complicated interactions. 2X3X2 = (2+2+2)+(2+2+2) Thus we developed a simplified method of handling these interactions. The most amazing thing is that science has developed from both ends of the equation. The study Biology did not begin with the primary forces but through the study of life. Various relationships were identified and explained and refined. Quite amazingly, the study of chemistry wound up merging with the study of biology into the study of biochemistry. Like digging two tunnels in opposite sides of the mountain and having them join up very closely without planning. This congruence is demonstrated quite often in new discoveries and is one of the most impressive of supporting arguments that science is on the right track. ~Raithere
Hey Spookz, I think Raithere will help me show my evidance again now in Pudgin instead of English. Don't forget to come back and collect that one too....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It'll be a very short session, so don't go far.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! So Raithere, may I ask you do you say then that the reasons that ants, plants, planets, hefloreses, Raitheres, Volcanic movements, Earth tectonic movements, all happen due to just the four forces of: 1- electromagnetic 2- Strong Nuclear 3- Weak Nuclear 4- Gravity So me deciding to kick your butt in this coming discussion, and the logic that I'll use againest you, may you tell me under which one of your forces does my brain and logic work?? Also, why should I believe that these forces are just four and there is no more, Is there scientific proof to support the notion that only 4 forces exist, or are you basing your claim on today's STATE OF THE ART SCEINTIFIC FINDINGS, and how may I communicate with these forces, since they look like the bosses around here, because I have this itch in me to ask them a favor?
Mmm... it depends on what you mean by hefloreses and Raitheres but yes, all of these things can be boiled down to the elemental forces. Actually, all of the forces have some effect on your brain although gravity is perhaps incidental as to how it works. Logic is thought and that's more in the realm of metaphysics than physics. Still, every evidence suggests that the physical construct of the brain is responsible for thought. As to how exactly it works we're still not sure. No, there could be more. We haven't discovered any but there could be. Ask a rock. They don't seem to be conscious much less prone to giving favors. ~Raithere
But Raithere, How may unconscious elements be attributed to the creation of conscious creatures?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, to get a really good handle on it you'd first have to have a complete definition of what consciousness is. But I'll give you an example: Take two mirrors and set them at an acute angle to one another. Now place something in between. Notice that there is an infinite set of recursive images isomorphic to "reality". ~Raithere
Ok, no answer to the question of the impossibility of unconscious entities described by Raithere as 4 forces or what could be more to be attributed to conscious creatures. Are you saying then that I must hurt so bad that you'd rather admit to my old logic that life(state of conscious) is not an absolute reality but a reflection like you mentioned than continue with our current quessionaire.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Hint: The more you disperse the scenario Raithere the more you make my life easier....it's also looking like you have no option but to keep dispersing.....it's just a matter of time..
