What a discovery!
And endless questions.
We all know space is empty, a vaccuum, filled only with electro magnetic waves, the whole spectrum.
What makes gravitational waves move?
Water waves are caused by the inertia of mass. The impluse continues to build up the waves and they seem to move.
But i never heard that space and time must have the same type of inertia.
What does determine their "normal" condition?
Is it possible the whole quantum effect is caused by such gravitational waves, too small to be measured yet?
Much like photons, there is likely some form of wave-particle duality A wave cannot propagate through a vacuum... a wave requires interaction of one form or another, a passing of energy A photon is likely made up of smaller particles (like an atom), which would help explain the wave-like properties of a photon (and graviton) |
|
|
|
Germany is very multilingual, because we live in the middle of Europe.
You would be amazed at how many Americans don't realize this... In America you are forced to learn... ... English... that's it... Some people might argue that Spanish is also required, but 1 semester of Spanish where the kids don't give a shit won't teach them anything I don't think Arabic should be mandatory, but certainly encouraged given the current situation in Germany (and Europe as a whole) Do the math... 80 million German speaking citizens + 1 million Arabic speaking immigrants = language barrier |
|
|
|
...it is more important that the people who come to live in another country learn the language of this country.
Well sure, I'd expect the immigrants to be learning German as well... Nobody wants to live in a country where everyone speaks a language you do not understand... that's just common sense... But, what is so hard about meeting them half-way, and learning Arabic while they learn German? The reason most Europeans learn multiple languages is because they want to talk to their neighbors... which is exactly why it is a good reason to learn Arabic If you cannot communicate with your neighbor, you cannot solve the problems which will eventually arise between you and your neighbor... |
|
|
|
i am not agree with that,gun control will prevent people to defend their self from violence,because bad people cannot stopped,but gun can controled. how about gun with massive security,only can used by the owner,with fingerprint.
Anybody can make gun out of pipe. No finger print. So, why finger print at all? A fingerprint scanner on a gun ensures that only the owner is able to fire the weapon: Boulder teen invents fingerprint scanner for gunsTech News: World's Safest Gun; End Accidental ShootingsIf a thief finds my gun, he can't shoot me with it... but if I get my gun, I can shoot him... |
|
|
|
|
You guys are all retarded...
The rest of the world is not like America, the rest of the world is multi-lingual... I had a teacher in high school from Germany. She taught 6 different languages...
Germans are expected to be multi-lingual as they live within 100 miles of several foreign languages...
After accepting more than 1 million Arabic speaking refugees, it only makes sense to learn Arabic... the language of your new neighbor...
This in no way implies that Germany is becoming Muslim, or forcing Islam on the German people... that is a fucking ignorant assumption
It's about being able to communicate with the new immigrants who live in your town!
|
|
|
|
even charles darwin was believe that god exist
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinThough reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft AtheistP.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia... Ahah! For sure he hates that! Can you imagine? People from all around the world sharing knowledge and THINKING!!!  Horrible. How will people continue to believe in god if they start to think? ^^ No wonder you like Wikipedia so much. All you have to do is get in there and write whatever nonsense you want, and people think you are a great guy. You clearly have never tried to edit Wikipedia and "write whatever nonsense you want"... Why don't you try some day? Go for it! Edit the Evolution page... change it to say Evolution is a big conspiracy and a lie... Test: 1) If you are even capable of editing the Wikipedia page 2) How long your misinformation stays on Wikipedia Test your hypothesis (like any scientist would)... fucking do it, don't be a pussy! |
|
|
|
...
Cause and effect are not something that control Him. They are simply used by Him. He is outside of them.
And the proof of that is where? I'm waiting... Just show us mathematically or empirically (good luck with that one) that God is outside of the "cause and effect". You are just pulling these assertions straight out of your ass, aren't you? PS. Please don't say it is in the Bible...Or that some smart psychic told you. Too funny... I accused BADecker of pulling assertions, "straight out of his ass", within 2 minutes of your post (in another thread) ...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.
Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists? When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like: http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something. I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists... If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your assHow do you do your research if not via Google? I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong? Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims |
|
|
|
...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.
Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists? When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like: http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
If that's the only way you do your research, you might as well forget it and go to bed or something. I didn't expect a religitard like you to actually post a link to a source... probably because no source would/could ever back up your claim that science has proven God exists... If you cannot provide a source, the obvious conclusion is that you pulled the claim straight out of your assHow do you do your research if not via Google? I'm curious now... what am I doing wrong? Somehow I only seem to find articles that agree with consensus reality, not your fantasy land claims |
|
|
|
This thread is awsome. I just looked here and there and now I'm going to read it more carefully.
As for me, I don't think that scientists have proved that God exists but I don't think anyone can really prove the opposite. That's why IMO atheists and religious people shouldn't be 100% sure about their views.
You are correct. You cannot prove God does not exist because the claim that God exists is not falsifiable... Which means it is not science... All scientific claims must be falsifiable... It is required for science... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodScientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Under modern interpretations, a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested
|
|
|
|
...This means that science proves that God exists. I don't prove that God exists. The scientific laws do.
Why don't you post a link to your source for science proving that God exists? When I google, "theory of God", I see no such result... I only find articles contradicting your statement, like: http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/Hawking now explained: "What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist."
He added: "Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."
|
|
|
|
even charles darwin was believe that god exist
Are you sure about that? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_DarwinThough reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a god, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind." He went as far as saying that "Science has nothing to do with Christ, except insofar as the habit of scientific research makes a man cautious in admitting evidence. For myself, I do not believe that there ever has been any revelation. As for a future life, every man must judge for himself between conflicting vague probabilities."
With respect to the theological view of the question; this is always painful to me.— I am bewildered.– I had no intention to write atheistically. But I own that I cannot see, as plainly as others do, & as I [should] wish to do, evidence of design & beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed.
He states in his own writings that he is an Agnostic / soft AtheistP.S. I'm starting to understand why religitards like BADecker hate Wikipedia... |
|
|
|
Science is opposite of religion. Everything in science is questioned by each and every scientist.
To be fair, its mostly just protestant Christians who reject science... Don't quote me on this, but I think most Buddhists, Hindus and even Catholics accept science. Some religious people even support science, like Father George Coyne, former director of the Vatican Observatory. In this clip he says, [pope] John Paul II said, 'evolution in the neoDarwinian sense is no longer a mere hypothesis.' He said that. It's in writing. The Vatican has always been mixed... sometimes they pay scientists for their work, other times they make the scientist drink hemlock... |
|
|
|
We know scientifically that God exists.
...there is scientific proof for the existence of both God and black holes... The factualness[sp] makes both God and black holes law
God is not a theoretical concept... God Himself/Itself is a scientifically proven fact
Your usage of the words "proof" and "fact" are not in accordance with Consensus Reality... If we knew for sure what black holes really were, we would have black hole law rather than black hole theory.
The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about... Black Hole theory cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for black holes... theory is the epitome of science A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only " proof" science accepts as objective fact) You could have a law pertaining to the gravitational force produced by a black hole... or a law relating to the properties of the event horizon... but you cannot possibly turn the entirety of black hole theory into a single law... that just isn't possible... you do not understand what you are talking aboutPlease learn the terminology of science before spewing more bullshit |
|
|
|
Are paper wallets really secure?
I want to hold some BTC and I want o secure the best way I can.
Besides paper wallets what other options do I have?
I use paper wallet generated automatically by website. Im feeling pretty safe. Paper wallet advantage is that you can hide it in book and its really hard to find by someone random. I hope you trust that website 100% to not store a copy of your private keys... And hope no hacker gets into their database because they almost certainly have a copy... The info is also transmitted across the internet, which could get intercepted... |
|
|
|
|
Madeline Albright (former secretary of state) says that there is a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary...
This is the type of shit that pisses me off... Using religion to push crazy bullshit someone pulled out of their ass
|
|
|
|
Of course black holes are theoretical. Just because we know that something created gravity waves that we can feel, doesn't mean that it was black holes as explained by theory. Even if it was something we could call black holes, it doesn't mean that we have the theory right. The whole thing about black holes is just talk, because we don't really know that anything that we know about them is accurate. If for some unknown reason Mars simply vanished, we would feel the gravity waves from that as well. Detecting gravity waves is an itty bitty start. We still don't have any idea of what gravity or gravity waves really are. God is just a theoretical concept, black holes are real... There is more than enough evidence to know for certain that black holes exist... there is the dilation of light around them... the fast movement of stars that get near them... some of them even have huge jets of matter and energy spewing out both sides! The only theoretical aspect of a black hole is what might be inside of it... sure, that's uncertain for the moment... but to say black holes are theoretical is a complete misunderstanding of astronomy (and scientific terminology in general) Hell, even the Mayans knew about the black hole in the center of our galaxy! (the alignment of Dec 2012 was the alignment with the black hole) |
|
|
|
|
And of course they open with a fucking prayer
|
|
|
|
If the proposal in the theory is true, the so-called theory is not a theory. Rather, it is a law.
In general, I don't make the determination. I simply apply what science has said when they say law or theory.
The problem is... you don't have the first clue what you are talking about... The theory of evolution cannot become a law... it's not possible... theory is literally the best it gets for evolution... theory is the epitome of science A law is a completely different concept, and usually requires a mathematical proof (the only " proof" science accepts as objective fact) Please learn the terminology of science before spewing more bullshit |
|
|
|
Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.
Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.
When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then the failure of the system is upon us.
Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically losesWhat makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything? Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible... You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway... Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works... Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example. Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists. Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right. There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB. You are starting to sound like you favor gambling. Science has always been about consensus... you still do not understand what "theory" means in science... Everything in science starts out as a hypothesis... including evolution... the hypothesis was evolution by the process of natural selection... this was debated, analyzed, reworded, etc for 300 years... it is currently accepted by 99% of scientists... making it the consensus theory of how humans evolved A theory will never become a law because the two are not in the same category of things... you cannot have a "law of evolution" because the theory of evolution is too encompassing... a law can only be one specific aspect, while evolution covers 100+ aspects... We already refer to certain aspects of the theory of evolution as laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance1) Law of Segregation (the "First Law") 2) Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law") 3) Law of Dominance (the "Third Law") These are 3 of the laws guiding the genetic branch of evolution theory... evolution is a fact, it has been provenTo compare, The Big Bang Theory that you mentioned, is less of a fact, more hypothesis... it is regarded as a theory because it is the best explanation of events that anyone on this planet has come up with... it could certainly be proven incorrect, and the chances of that are fairly high... unlike evolution, which has been proven to be a true and factual representation of events (as well as anything can be proven in science) For contrast, Intelligent Design is not a theory... it is a hypothesis... it presents no facts that can be tested, and the hypothesis is not falsifiable... no scientists accept the hypothesis as a theory... it is not even considered science, but pseudoscience... Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.
Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.
Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.
The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.
P.S. Please quit babbling nonsense about Hitler and Germans, you already lost as I explained above |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
