Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Keywords

Latest topics
» Players popularity - What makes it?
Yesterday at 9:56 pm by DECIMA

» This Is What A Feminist Looks Like
Yesterday at 2:21 pm by bogbrush

» Asian Swing 2017: Bejing/Tokyo & Shanghai
Yesterday at 1:42 pm by luvsports!

» Who Is Going To Be The Next Number One?
Yesterday at 12:18 pm by legendkillar

» One of the best match ever?
Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:24 am by Tenez

» The Ultimate GOAT List
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:50 am by Tenez

» Stefanos Tsitsipas
Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:13 am by noleisthebest

» Jelena Ostapenko
Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:26 pm by Jahu

» Nice terror attack
Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:45 pm by Viloet33

October 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031     

Calendar Calendar

Affiliates
free forum


This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:50 pm

bogbrush wrote:...
I’m afraid that if you really are so desperate to believe in a will behind all this I can’t help you. It’s up to you if you really insist on imagining a prime mover, in the complete absence of any evidence.

I think it is more the other way around actually. You are desperate to believe there is nothing special about this universe when frankly its existence is an aberration on so many levels. You are the one denying the fact that life started only once 3.8billion years ago while no other lines of life started on this planet nor has been observed so far anywhere else. You are making the same mistake as those who believe the universe is 5000 year old (just the opposite direction). There are no real scientists who thinks otherwise cause simply there is no proof for spontaneous generation.

Einstein who you seem to have respect for was in awe about this world and universe at large. The energy, dimensions and the complexity seen on this planet leaves anyone with a logical mind completely dazzled with questions. The problem is we are so untangled within this universe than we don't even realise how amazing it is.

But this is not about being right or wrong. I don't try to prove there is a God. I am just saying it is as rational to believe in a "purpose" than there is no "purpose".

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 pm

The thing is, men are so vain and prideful they don't want to admit that they know very little...or nothing.

These days, most are lulled in their concrete cages, watching TV, so even furhter away from the source of life.

The devil has been diligently working on plugging every little hole of free time , let alone free thinking.

People think they are thinking, but if they did, they'd have more questions than asnwers.

All here who advocate dead materialism, I ask:

What is a thought and where do thoughts come from?

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:21 pm

Tenez wrote:

What wrong did I say? Truth doesn't care about being crazy or loony. It simply is truth.
I'm sorry Tenez, you're starting to sound like you're off your rockers.
Saying Federer and Nadal have polar styles, that they have different ways of winning a point, saying that they balance each other out- that would be tennis analysis. What you did, and presumably the reason you brought it up on this thread, is say that there's something supernatural and spiritual about the way they balance each other out.
Declaring it 'the truth' is just making it worse. The reason Nadal and Federer reached the top is because they both had what it takes. The fact they had different styles is a combination of luck and circumstances. Nothing divine or supernatural.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:03 am

DECIMA wrote:
Tenez wrote:

What wrong did I say? Truth doesn't care about being crazy or loony. It simply is truth.
I'm sorry Tenez, you're starting to sound like you're off your rockers.
Saying Federer and Nadal have polar styles, that they have different ways of winning a point, saying that they balance each other out- that would be tennis analysis. What you did, and presumably the reason you brought it up on this thread, is say that there's something supernatural and spiritual about the way they balance each other out.
Declaring it 'the truth' is just making it worse. The reason Nadal and Federer reached the top is because they both had what it takes. The fact they had different styles is a combination of luck and circumstances. Nothing divine or supernatural.
How twisted can you be? Where do I say divine? Supernatural?

However the fact they have different styles is certainly not down to luck....circumstances maybe.

If Nadal had not developed that game he would be nowhere near Federer. He woudl be called Zebellos or Granolllers and we woudl not talk about him.

But I also mentioned Borg/McEnroe, Edberg/Becker, Agassi/Pete and I could add Apple and Samsung, US v Russia, day/night, Winter summer, men and women, Sun and moon etc....This is the world of duality, expressed everywhere....very well symbolised by the ying and yang symbol. I feel sorry if you had not noticed. I am only describing nature.....it's only you bringing the mystic part of it.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:09 am

So why did you bring it up in the context of what we were discussing?

Why is Federer and Nadal in any way linked to the sun and moon? You're clearly trying to say that there's something spiritual going on.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:40 am

I make parallels cause this yin/yang duality is observable at all levels.

I am the Federer of ideas and concepts....I have yet to find my Nadal...I think you are Horacio Zeballos in that department!


Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:17 am

Tenez wrote:I make parallels cause this yin/yang duality is observable at all levels.
Federer and Nadal have absolutely no connection to the sun and the moon.
The fact they reached the top of the game and have different styles is a combination of random chance and circumstance.
You're also being a bit cowardly here; you brought up this duality point in response to Bogbrush saying everything was explainable by science... so you clearly think there's something special which happens which ensures the duality exists, as you say the sun appearing as close as the moon etc. But you got annoyed when I called you out on it and said you were claiming it's supernatural, because you can't actually defend this point.
There's nothing in nature that brings 'balance' to tennis rivalries. It's just simplistic thinking, looking for patterns when they don't exist.

Tenez wrote:
I am the Federer of ideas and concepts....I have yet to find my Nadal...I think you are Horacio Zeballos in that department!
You get scared when you debate me, just admit it, don't think Federer would get nervy just before he's about to play Horacio.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am

DECIMA wrote:Federer and Nadal have absolutely no connection to the sun and the moon.
The fact they reached the top of the game and have different styles is a combination of random chance and circumstance.
There's nothing in nature that brings 'balance' to tennis rivalries. It's just simplistic thinking, looking for patterns when they don't exist.
You see you refuse to see obvious patterns. You don;t even know that yourself are the produce of this duality. You have a lot to learn. This duality is simply at all levels. in politics, philosophical ideas, sport, technology, matter/antimatter, anima/animus (within yourself). Look even in their fans there is this duality. how they roughly share themselves between those 2 players. Same with Borg v McEnroe. All this is quite balance. You coudl have 90% for Nadal and Borg and 10% supporting Federer and Mc. Nope.

Tenez wrote:
I am the Federer of ideas and concepts....I have yet to find my Nadal...I think you are Horacio Zeballos in that department!
You get scared when you debate me, just admit it, calling yourself Federer isn't fooling anyone.
Is that your only argument Horacio?

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:34 am

A few things in nature are binary and opposites, a few things are a spectrum.
You're not answering this tough questions here Tenez. I'm not denying that there are many situations where a duality exists, I'm just saying it wouldn't be anything supernatural or special which has caused it, just random chance, circumstances, and the laws of science.
You can try and make it sound reasonable by avoiding getting to the point, but even without that, the idea Federer and Nadal have any connection to the sun and the moon is crazy.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:44 am

DECIMA wrote:A few things in nature are binary and opposites, a few things are a spectrum.
You see. Yo have no idea. Yo don;t make point. You are trying to destroy a point not build on it. Duality and spectrum are not incompatible. There is duality in a spectrum. infra/red to blue velvet being the opposites for instance.

You're not answering this tough questions here Tenez. I'm not denying that there are many situations where a duality exists, I'm just saying it wouldn't be anything supernatural or special which has caused it, just random chance, circumstances, and the laws of science.
Again, whose talking about "supernatural" but you. What is the definition of it? You are the one again trying to destroy concepts and parallels by taking the discussion where I never went. I am just observing the world. It's as simple as that.
You can try and make it sound reasonable by avoiding getting to the point, but even without that, the idea Federer and Nadal have any connection to the sun and the moon is crazy.
Again, if you cannot make the difference between making parallels and "having connections", then you are just trying to kill the debate, probably because you don;t have the material to make sound arguments.....Horacio.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by DECIMA on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:18 am

Come on Tenez, you're going through so much to try and make a point and now you're becoming too scared to make it!

Tenez wrote:Again, whose talking about "supernatural" but you. What is the definition of it? You are the one again trying to destroy concepts and parallels by taking the discussion where I never went. I am just observing the world. It's as simple as that.
Right, so am I meant to believe that in the middle of a discussion about spirituality, right after BB said things can be explained by science, you decided to do some tennis analysis?
You were clearly indicating that there's something special influencing science which ensures there's duality, whether it's the sun and the moon or Federer and Nadal. And that something special, you clearly think is not due to random luck, circumstance, or science; or you wouldn't be bringing it up after BB made that point. But you are scared of calling it anything, because you know it can't really be defended.

DECIMA

Posts : 4429
Join date : 2013-05-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:44 am

DECIMA wrote:Come on Tenez, you're going through so much to try and make a point and now you're becoming too scared to make it!
Not as badly as you trying to make me say things I never said. If I did you'd have highlighted it by now. That is where you show more dishonesty.

Right, so am I meant to believe that in the middle of a discussion about spirituality, right after BB said things can be explained by science, you decided to do some tennis analysis?
I am saying that the fundamental questions cannot be explained by science. I do think the fact there is energy/matter and time is an oddity more than something normal....for any rational mind. However it is there.  
You were clearly indicating that there's something special influencing science which ensures there's duality, whether it's the sun and the moon or Federer and Nadal.
 I woudl never say something like that. Again you don't grasp it. I am just saying science is "special" cause as mentioned I would expect nothing more than something. And that makes that "something" special at so many levels.
Asking me to explain why Federer and Nadal playing against each other in the same era and having, for instance 15millions fans on facebook each is beyond me. I don;t know like I do not know why the moon appears of the same size of sun in the sky. I just don;t think there are just luck. It is just in the nature of universe. You are entitled to believe it is pure luck cause we cannot prove yet why there is duality in the universe. We can only observe it is so.

You clearly think is not due to random luck, circumstance, or science; or you wouldn't be bringing it up after BB made that point. But you are scared of calling it anything, because you know it can't really be defended.
Yeah I am really scared LOL! Horacio you don't get it simply because you don;t have the knowledge so it is easier to try to disprove than to prove.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:19 pm

You believe in a sky fairy, Tenez.  That's all I need to "get".  This discussion is moot.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:18 pm

I do believe in donkeys reincarnating in humans.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:22 pm

This is a very simple discussion, even boring.

Same as the one where people can't see Nadal is doped to his eyeballs and are waiting for Julia Santamaria to undestroy 200 positive tested blood samples and "see" the proof.

I follow biblical vocabulary and make no excuse for it.

And I don't see it as kabala folowers do.

No pride in admiting when someone is better than me. And God who made me & this beautiful planet and universe surely is.

It's not a matter of convincing with arguments, it's a question of faith.

It's the same leap of faith you all choose to take by believing/thinking God does not exist.

I am happy with my choice as I am sure all of you are, too.

No problemo! Big Grin

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:38 pm

Also, instead of arguing and trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God (or coming to understanding of how something came about), how about moving to a more palpable - familiar ground - ourselves! 

Who are we?
What are thoughts, mind, dreams, soul, spirit?
Why do we feel the need for beauty?
What is beauty?
Are we all same or different and how?
How come we all have unique fingerprints?
What is synchronicity?
How come we all need love?
What is love?

Hey, enough questions for start...

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:01 am

Tenez wrote:
It is not difficult to understand though. Order and chaos follow each other everywhere in nature. It's not a question of believing in god or evil..unless you call order God and chaos Evil, which one is perfectly entitled by the way. I personally don't. I think both are necessary. We know for instance that Cancer evolved with human life too. Mushroom developed to decompose and control dead wood which was amassing and occupying huge space unecessarily.  

To take the example of Federer, I think he is the ultimate professor of tennis, has learnt and applied everything by the letter when it comes to tennis (take the ball early, keep head still on BH, go to the net at the first opportunity, knowing how to volley etc...) and doing all that to save a maximum of energy like a bird flies with much less energy than a plane or any model we can build. That to me is "order". Nadal's game came to destroy all that by sending a ball which is difficult to control, by making Federer run and break his talent, exhausting him and making look older at the end of a 4 or 5th setter than he would against the rest. I see Nadal's game as based on destroying any form of talent, or making sure that talent who play a lesser role as the match extends. One can call this "satanic", chaos, or else. It doesn't matter. I quite like to describe life with images more than a purely scientific boring way. You might say Nadal has talent to break federer down, I'd say yes like cancer or a virus can destroy a human being even though it is much less complex than their victim.

Food for thoughts.
I thought this was a great and very interesting post with good illustrations on duality.
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
I enjoy reading people's efforts on trying to explain the deeper dimensions of "things".

For some time I have been fascinate by nature (I call it creation) and how much we can learn from a flower, wind, sea, tree...and so much more.

There are so many metaphors and questions.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sat Oct 14, 2017 10:55 am

noleisthebest wrote:I thought this was a great and very interesting post with good illustrations on duality.
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
I enjoy reading people's efforts on trying to explain the deeper dimensions of "things".

For some time I have been fascinate by nature (I call it creation) and how much we can learn from a flower, wind, sea, tree...and so much more.

There are so many metaphors and questions.
Thanks NITB. I knew it would not be lost on everybody. Winking

Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:08 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?
I mean why is there duality?

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:16 am

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?
I mean why is there duality?
Nope....except that it makes sense to have opposites at all levels.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:22 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?
I mean why is there duality?
Nope....except that it makes sense to have opposites at all levels.  
Yes, they are everywhere and in everything.
Then there is the element of their battling sometimes.

Like some weird force of life allowed to take place that is linked to the construct of time. But for what purpose?

It would be nice to jump out and be free of all these constraints!



noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sat Oct 14, 2017 11:32 am

And particularly interesting is the duality of light and darkness.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by summerblues on Sun Oct 15, 2017 4:30 am

I have been gone for a few weeks and I see I missed a very neat - albeit not tennis focused - thread here.

summerblues

Posts : 2984
Join date : 2012-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:53 am

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?
I mean why is there duality?
Nope....except that it makes sense to have opposites at all levels.  
In one of the posts you mentioned the Sun and Moon appearing the same in size due to their positioning.
Is this just an observation or do you have any thoughts/reasoning there?

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Sun Oct 15, 2017 8:44 pm

noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
Have you got anywhere with the origin of it?
What do you mean?
I mean why is there duality?
Nope....except that it makes sense to have opposites at all levels.  
In one of the posts you mentioned the Sun and Moon appearing the same in size due to their positioning.
Is this just an observation or do you have any thoughts/reasoning there?

No, it's just an observation. But I certainly don;t think it is a coincidence. I even think it was a critical condition to start life on earth. I read (a long time ago though) that the tide, created by the moon, helped life develop, though I am not sure it was once life started or to jump start it.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by noleisthebest on Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:40 pm

Tenez wrote:
noleisthebest wrote:
In one of the posts you mentioned the Sun and Moon appearing the same in size due to their positioning.
Is this just an observation or do you have any thoughts/reasoning there?
No, it's just an observation. But I certainly don;t think it is a coincidence. I even think it was a critical condition to start life on earth. I read (a long time ago though) that the tide, created by the moon, helped life develop, though I am not sure it was once life started or to jump start it.
I thought you meant stg more as you mentioned Eastern and Western world being liked with it somehow.

I also don't think it's a coincidence, but it's a fascinating phenomenon.

For me all those "coincidences" have some meaning and symbolism.
The Bible mentions how the Sun was given us to shed light during day and Moon at night.

Again a duality - day and night...

As for the start of life, could be, but the mechanic are not that important for me.
Main thing is there is life and there is death.

noleisthebest

Posts : 24939
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:12 am

DECIMA wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
The only difficult question, as Amrit says, is how do we get energy from nothing (matter coalesces from energy so that's not a problem). That is where I said study of black holes is critical because they are a match for the pre-Big Bang environment. I have read that vast energy might arise from miniscule variations in a void; already we know there is something called vacuum energy which involves the concept of energy coming into existence due to quantum fluctuations - something from nothing!

As I see is, it's like saying 0 = 1 - 1. Agreed? But what if the 1 and the -1 very rarely became separated? Then we'd have a stray 1 and a stray -1 floating around so we'd have two somethings from nothing. At the quantum level it is known that fluctuations blink in and out so it's not unreasonable.
Ah wow, that's so clever actually.

Black holes are science voodoo.  There is absolutely no evidence outside of limited math for their existence, and all knowledge about how they work is absolute conjecture based on the same limited math. It's a bit like how we have a picture of how the weather works and then proceed to pretend we can predict the weather in 2 weeks time. Hawking, the most overrated man on the planet, made a living out of black holes and spouting one piece of crap after another.  Followed by 100 retractions.  It's just bullshit. Like String Theory... the most ridiculous pile of tosh ever - and to which prominent scientists like Feynman shake(d) their heads.  Our knowledge of physics will never be answered by physics, because we are 3d objects inside the system that made us.  You'll have more luck explaining to Mario and Luigi how and why they came to exist in the video game.

Black Holes and String theory are the "science" version of god and religion.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:14 am

That's really not correct. A black hole is an observed fact; we know because it's completely black and we can't see through them.

The tricky part is the singularity at it's centre but you have a job explaining what's happened to huge amounts of mass otherwise, especially as we can observe gigantic numbers of huge stars swirling around galactic blackholes like tiny satellites on a tight string.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:19 am

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:...
I’m afraid that if you really are so desperate to believe in a will behind all this I can’t help you. It’s up to you if you really insist on imagining a prime mover, in the complete absence of any evidence.

I think it is more the other way around actually. You are desperate to believe there is nothing special about this universe when frankly its existence is an aberration on so many levels. You are the one denying the fact that life started only once 3.8billion years ago while no other lines of life started on this planet nor has been observed so far anywhere else. You are making the same mistake as those who believe the universe is 5000 year old (just the opposite direction). There are no real scientists who thinks otherwise cause simply there is no proof for spontaneous generation.

Einstein who you seem to have respect for was in awe about this world and universe at large. The energy, dimensions and the complexity seen on this planet leaves anyone with a logical mind completely dazzled with questions. The problem is we are so untangled within this universe than we don't even realise how amazing it is.

But this is not about being right or wrong. I don't try to prove there is a God. I am just saying it is as rational to believe in a "purpose" than there is no "purpose".
There's no evidence life began once or a thousand times so I make no comment.

There's no evidence that life is restricted to Earth, only that it doesn't appear where we know it really shouldn't be, like the 500 degree surface of Venus, or the arid Moon.

Having awe is not the same as adopting superstition. I think it's pretty amazing, but then I think the way mass distorts spacetime so that object travelling in straight lines through distorted spacetime appear to move in circles in 3 dimensions. But it's physics.

I believe it's completely irrational to invent a concept, have no evidence or need for it, and then believe in it. It's actually slightly bonkers. Reassuring bonkers if you like, but bonkers nonetheless.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:00 pm

bogbrush wrote:There's no evidence life began once or a thousand times so I make no comment.
mmhh There is evidence life began at least once. There is no evidence it started twice or more though I agree it is a possibilty. Just weird it is nowhere to be seen. So the point is that if it's all "physical and chemical" as you say why can't we see or start other lives at will?

There's no evidence that life is restricted to Earth, only that it doesn't appear where we know it really shouldn't be, like the 500 degree surface of Venus, or the arid Moon.
Fine but earth seems a perfect ground for starting life....yet it only started once. The process to turn a dead matter into a cell which itself multiplied in billions sort of different lives started once in our 4.5 billion year old planet. As those original cells seem so prolific, we would be able to see other lines of life. But we haven't.

I believe it's completely irrational to invent a concept, have no evidence or need for it, and then believe in it. It's actually slightly bonkers. Reassuring bonkers if you like, but bonkers nonetheless.
But that is exactly what you are doing in effect. You are inventing the concept that life and universes can start at will according to physical laws when there is no proof for it.

Regarding inventing a concept, I don;t think people invented the Greek mythology or Job's book because they felt like. It might be medecine for the mind like you'd take aspirin for a headache. And if it was a creation of one mind, why are so many others adopting it?

As a father you might know the difficulty of passing your knowledge to your children. And what knowledge you gave will they leave to theirs? I am sure you can hardly go back 3 or 4 generations and know who your forefathers were and what wisdom they lived by. So imagine if 10 000 years ago one had created a concept of God and tried to pass it on to his children....what are the chances of this "concept" to survive?

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 1:49 pm

Tenez wrote:
bogbrush wrote:There's no evidence life began once or a thousand times so I make no comment.
mmhh There is evidence life began at least once. There is no evidence it started twice or more though I agree it is a possibilty. Just weird it is nowhere to be seen. So the point is that if it's all "physical and chemical" as you say why can't we see or start  other lives at will?

There's no evidence that life is restricted to Earth, only that it doesn't appear where we know it really shouldn't be, like the 500 degree surface of Venus, or the arid Moon.
Fine but earth seems a perfect ground for starting life....yet it only started once. The process to turn a dead matter into a cell which itself multiplied in billions sort of different lives started once in our 4.5 billion year old planet. As those original cells seem so prolific, we would be able to see other lines of life. But we haven't.

I believe it's completely irrational to invent a concept, have no evidence or need for it, and then believe in it. It's actually slightly bonkers. Reassuring bonkers if you like, but bonkers nonetheless.
But that is exactly what you are doing in effect. You are inventing the concept that life and universes can start at will according to physical laws when there is no proof for it.

Regarding inventing a concept, I don;t think people invented the Greek mythology or Job's book because they felt like. It might be medecine for the mind like you'd take aspirin for a headache. And if it was a creation of one mind, why are so many others adopting it?

As a father you might know the difficulty of passing your knowledge to your children. And what knowledge you gave  will they leave to theirs?  I am sure you can hardly go back 3 or 4 generations and know who your forefathers were and what wisdom they lived by. So imagine if 10 000 years ago one had created a concept of God and tried to pass it on to his children....what are the chances of this "concept" to survive?
There you go again, making unfounded assertions.

Life might have begun a thousand times on Earth, been wiped out every time and kept arising until one version fluked it past the critical stage of prolific copying, or they've all been competed out by one model. Nobody knows. All we know is that all life follows a carbon based model which, we think, is probably necessary (because only carbon and silicon make long chain repeating molecules).

Why would we be able to see life on other planets? We've visited two lifeless rocks (Moon and Mars). Wowzah. We've also seen some crazy madhouse places like Venus where metal will melt on the surface, or weird places where it's so cold that hydrocarbons form rain and water is rock. We've also seen some interesting places with, apparently, underground oceans but we've not gone there yet. We can barely see planets from other solar systems let alone study them. There are zero grounds for your conclusion about the existence of extraterrestrial life. None.

And finally, no I'm inventing no concepts. I'm telling you what's known and what's speculated on. There's a very good reason why Greek mythology, Norse Gods, Jobs book and the rest came about - because people feel a need for there to be a meaning to stuff and lacking any insight into underlying processes they often invent it, like you are. The fact that throughout history humans have come up with the most stupid solutions that if you advocated them now you'd be laughed out of the forum should be a caution to you; the very tendencies you point at have been responsible for a load of crap over the millennia. Believing in higher purpose is just an updated version of the same crap.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by luvsports! on Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:02 pm

Stephen Hawking once said that before the big bang, time did not exist, so there was no "time" for god to create anything.

luvsports!

Posts : 4017
Join date : 2012-09-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 2:18 pm

luvsports! wrote:Stephen Hawking once said that before the big bang, time did not exist, so there was no "time" for god to create anything.
Yes, I touched on this earlier. There's a lot of very tough stuff in all this and the elastic nature of time is one. So are higher dimensions, and quantum theory.

In the end it's because we're just like any animal that evolved sensory apparatus to navigate and copy ourselves in the macro, short term, normal gravity World. Consequently we never needed senses to cope with these concepts, let alone the mental processes to conceive of them. It's a bit annoying really but the only good analogies involve imagining life in lower dimensions like the imaginary "flatlander", creatures who exist in 2-D and who are completely astonished when a 3D thing passes through their perception of the Universe, like an apple descending through a sheet of paper which they perceive first as not there, then appearing from nowhere, getting bigger, then smaller, then vanishing.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 16, 2017 3:08 pm

bogbrush wrote:...
There you go again, making unfounded assertions.

Life might have begun a thousand times on Earth, been wiped out every time and kept arising until one version fluked it past the critical stage of prolific copying, or they've all been competed out by one model. Nobody knows. All we know is that all life follows a carbon based model which, we think, is probably necessary (because only carbon and silicon make long chain repeating molecules).
And you dare talking about "unfounded assertions"? What about yours? There is no evidence. End off. Nor are we any closer to insufflate life into a rock according to "physical laws"!

It is interesting that you want to believe in life elsewhere when there is no more proof of it than there is purpose in our world.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 6:04 pm

We are, you just don’t understand it. I tried my best, I explained some of the physicals but in the end there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear.

I didn’t say there was life elsewhere, I only said you were completely off the case to state there wasn’t. The probability that there is life elsewhere is overwhelmingly huge but not yet found.

Seeking purpose really is a bit lame but those who seek it fo so for the same emotional needs that had others believing in Odin and Zeus, and there’s no point arguing as it’s too important to them.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:16 pm

bogbrush wrote:We are, you just don’t understand it. I tried my best, I explained some of the physicals but in the end there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear.

I didn’t say there was life elsewhere, I only said you were completely off the case to state there wasn’t. The probability that there is life elsewhere is overwhelmingly huge but not yet found.

I am sorry BB but you are the one who don't quite get it. You did not need to explain "your physicals", I have followed physics research pretty closely all my youth coupled with physiological studies.  It does not solve the fundamental questions, quite the opposite. I am just astound by having something instead of nothing (a concept I don;t think you have quite grasped as you keep going on about the "physicals" as the explanation to everything) . A scientist mind can only have more questions than answers as his/her knowledge grows.

There cannot be an "overwhelmingly probability" about life out there cause we do not know the probability of it. We don;t know how it works. At best it is a chance in 4.5 billion years....so "overwhelmingly"? can be argued.  

oh and I again I never said there was no life elsewhere....I just said it has not been observed, even on earth (outside the one that links us to a potatoe)  which seems one of the best labs.

Seeking purpose really is a bit lame We all do, even yourself. having but those who seek it fo so for the same emotional needs that had others believing in Odin and Zeus, and there’s no point arguing as it’s too important to them
.

Don't think you are any different than those who believe in a Purpose or God. You clearly seem to know solid there isn't any. The difference with you is that if I put myself in a scientific mind, I cannot prove either way and leave it at that. Though I can't prove  matter and energy are "intelligent",  I am completely amazed that instead of having no time, no matter and space, "dead matter" turned into ourselves and allow us to ask those fundamental questions.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 8:33 pm

Nope (again)

- it’s not ‘at best’ one chance in 4.5bn years. You have no idea how many times life originated here. Might have been millions. You don’t know. It’s actually AT WORST  once in 4.5bn years......... and as there are thousands of trillions of stars and even more planets, then life would be extremely likely elsewhere, and that’s on the most garbage probability possible.

- I explained how something might arise from nothing. Hawking radiation speculates on the same premise.

- You don’t understand the burden of proof. It is beyond lame to infer a supernatural purpose and offer nothing better than ‘you can’t disprove it’. Disprove Santa..... you can’t? Well, maybe he exists too.

- you’re fundamental error is to think dead matter turned into us. It turned into nothing, it just became organised and complex, following known chemical processes and the iterative process of copying and selection by survival.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez on Mon Oct 16, 2017 9:37 pm

bogbrush wrote:Nope (again)

- it’s not ‘at best’ one chance in 4.5bn years. You have no idea how many times life originated here. Might have been millions. You don’t know. It’s actually AT WORST  once in 4.5bn years......... and as there are thousands of trillions of stars and even more planets, then life would be extremely likely elsewhere, and that’s on the most garbage probability possible.
- I explained how something might arise from nothing. Hawking radiation speculates on the same premise.

- You don’t understand the burden of proof. It is beyond lame to infer a supernatural purpose and offer nothing better than ‘you can’t disprove it’. Disprove Santa..... you can’t? Well, maybe he exists too.
Amazing. You do not even realise that it is you offering a  "you can't disprove it, therefore it is so" approach. We have yet to see another universe, another life line but according to you there is. What's the difference between those who believe in God and you? Both are certain they hold truth they cannot prove. At least those believing in God can so far call that unique universe and life line "Divine", until proven wrong., where you cannot prove anything, just observe the laws within your perimeter, those very physical laws which become very unstable when reaching extreme conditions.

- you’re fundamental error is to think dead matter turned into us. It turned into nothing, it just became organised and complex, following known chemical processes and the iterative process of copying and selection by survival.
You seem so certain but your fundamental error is to think Matter does not live when in fact it does. An electron turning around a nucleus, the earth orbiting around the sun look alive to me.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:08 pm

I wonder how many times you’ll have to read words like ‘overwhelming probability’ or ‘extremely likely’ before you realise they’re not the same as definitely is? It’s odd, I thought those words all had quite specific meanings. Maybe not.

An election looks alive to you? Oh, ok. I guess that explains quite a lot.

Oh look, some weird physics stuff that a scientist predicted but which couldn’t be proven. But which can now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41640256

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:56 pm

luvsports! wrote:Stephen Hawking once said that before the big bang, time did not exist, so there was no "time" for god to create anything.

That really isn't a good philosophical argument, since anything existing outside of time would then not be bound by any laws or limitations we have.  Living outside of time and OF OUR LAWS is actually a better argument for there being a god than not.  Also, Hawking does not know whether time existed before or not... He's again using wildly limited math.  I would say he's correct on that, but as I said... that opens up a can of worms. It does not close it.


Last edited by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:00 am; edited 1 time in total

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Mon Oct 16, 2017 11:58 pm

bogbrush wrote:That's really not correct. A black hole is an observed fact; we know because it's completely black and we can't see through them.

The tricky part is the singularity at it's centre but you have a job explaining what's happened to huge amounts of mass otherwise, especially as we can observe gigantic numbers of huge stars swirling around galactic blackholes like tiny satellites on a tight string.

It is not an observed fact.  The fact we cannot observe it is actually given as one of the reasons it exists... but for all you know there are 100 other reasons why parts of space are dark or for the effects you see. It does not HAVE to be a black hole that you imagine it to be.  Also, as I stated before... Hawking has continually thrown out entire books contradicting each other. He's as bad as a devout religionist nutcase.  You simply do not know.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:09 am

It’s less the darkness and more the evidence of stars flying around it like demented wasps that gives away the clue that there’s something rather big in there. That, and the massive lensing effect on distant galaxies that the distortion of space time shows, something we can use to measure the gravity of the entity.

I’d be happy to learn of the other 99 reasons for this.

Seriously though, there’s very tricky speculative science around what the Hell goes on at the singularity, but you’ll look hard to find any astronomer who says black holes don’t exist. They’re all over the place and no more speculative than neutron stars, their next of kin.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 1:17 am

How about some sort of huge mass that we don't yet know exists, which forms for some reason?  I'm not saying that it's the answer - I'm saying it's possible.  But your position - and that of Hawking - goes from "Black hole answers X Y Z" to "I know so much more than I actually do and black holes explain A B C D E F G H I J K L"

We can't predict the weather in 7 days to any real standard, so I am not buying that our limited math has extrapolated something as unworldly as a black hole and even made definite determinations on how they behave.  Hawking has made a living on selling lemons.

I also don't say that they don't exist.  I say that there isn't enough evidence to say they do,  and that we certainly can't extrapolate from the math what you and Hawking try to.  Science is failing with certain big questions and is coming up with dogma and bullshit.  The "multiverse" is another one... Not a scrap of evidence for one, but a total guess at explaining how our universe has a "perfect fit" to allow for life. Guesswork isn't science (although it usually starts with a guess or hypothesis).  Science comes from proper method and actual observation and a rounded mathematical picture.  This other stuff is just another religion.



The probability that there is life elsewhere is overwhelmingly huge but not yet found.

Nope.  You don't know that.  And if you are observing Drake's equation, then you'll note that changing any of the variables will completely and utterly change the probability.  It's just as likely that the chance of life occurring is 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000  as it is 1 in 10000000 on any given earth-like world.  There is absolutely NO WAY you can make your assertion without knowing the variables and how life actually begins. If we ever do work out the actual odds, then we can plug those figures in and come to a meaningful answer.  It's actually very possible that the chance of life existing is almost zero.. and that we are the only planet with life.  And, even if life exists, we won't know anyway - because the distances involved are never going to be bridged.

But overwhelmingly?  That's a very unscientific answer, given such a massive lack of data.  We don't have any clue as to the correct values for the variables used in Drake's equation.  In fact, the equation is dog shite.  Laugh  It's like me assessing how many people there are on earth with numbers i just guess at. Birth rates in culture, pop growth, land mass etc etc...

So we just say  POPULATION = land mass * growth * spread * average birth rate.  Let's do the math kids!   POPULATION of earth is....  1000000  * 1.5 * 2 * 1.6  = 4800000 people.  Whoops... looks like I'm wrong with my Daniel's Equation.


Last edited by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:14 am

The First, black holes aren’t really controversial. We observe neutron stars. We see them. They are tiny and astonishingly dense. The famous “teaspoon weighing a billion tonnes”. Ok, so they are actually observed. You ok with them?

They are predictable because they follow standard theory.

Then there is the reasonable assertion that they could be even bigger. Why not? But something even bigger will be even denser. So dense it’s gravity would be incredible. Not seen one of them yet.

Oh, except we do see empty spaces around which things orbit exactly in the way they would if something astonishingly dense and massive resided.

Is it really such a reach? Black holes aren’t some recent theory. I’m not ‘extrapolating from math’, I’m pointing to stuff in the sky that we can watch happening.

As for your alternative, I’m all ears but I don’t know what you’re describing. What is it?

As for evolved organised organisms, well there’s certainly far, far more planets than were ever imagined. The last 20 years has seen advances in detection that indicate they are vastly more prolific than previously thought, you need a lot more 0000’s. I don’t find it particularly curious that organic molecules will have followed a similar path. It’s not all that important really, but it feels like a hangover from medieval thinking to imagine this natural chemical process would only occur on one planet. I can’t quite see why, unless you think God made it all in 7 days etc.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:25 am

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

Well, when  the king of Black Holes is talking crap - I'm sure everyone else is too.  That's certain.  He doesn't have a clue.  No one does. He does have a large wallet though as people hang on his every word.  Cheers

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:40 am

Daniel wrote:http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2014/01/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes.html

Well, when  the king of Black Holes is talking crap - I'm sure everyone else is too.  That's certain.  He doesn't have a clue.  No one does. He does have a large wallet though as people hang on his every word.  Cheers
You should have read the article rather than reacting to a flash headline. He's made no comment that undermines the concept of a singularity, all he's done is comment on the definition of what happens at the so-called event horizon.

A common mistake is for people to think that the edge of the blackness is a "thing". It isn't, the only "thing" is the infinitely dense item at the centre. The blackness is just a region at which gravity has become so intense that light cannot escape. Hawking had postulated that at the edge quantum fluctuations could produce a pair of particles, oppositely charged, and one might escape meaning that the black hole would shed mass and eventually evaporate.

“The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes — in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape to infinity.” “There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory. [But quantum theory] enables energy and information to escape from a black hole," Hawking told Nature. His revised theory allows matter and energy to be held for a period of time before being released back into space.

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:30 pm

You see, you have assumed I didn't read the article.  I did.  I also read all this junk when it first came out.  I am not talking about the title.  The point I am making is that he made a complete guess based on limited math and crafted entire speeches and books around his guesses - like a nutcase Christian / Muslim / Jew. People all hung on his every word. And then it all fell apart... so now he's come up with yet more cuckoo extrapolations.  When he first came up with that junk, you'd have been here arguing how it all makes sense and how he's got it all sussed. 

Are you so sure his latest guess (because that's what it is... Horse shit to sell books and speeches, and to serve his ego) is correct?  Why are you now defending his latest fairy-tale, after he got the last one so badly wrong?  He doesn't know.  Liberate yourself and admit it. In 10 years time, it will be yet another massive set of retractions.  Retractions in  science are normal as we learn more about the world - but entire swings in position, here, there, and everywhere is only a sign that the person making the predictions is no smarter than Mystic Meg.

Further to that point, Hawking also peddles the man made global warming myth and proclaims we should travel to the stars before we all die out (when that is not even remotely likely).  How smart can he actually be when he thinks Star Trek "science" is achievable? Or that moving the human race would guarantee our survival indefinitely (yes, all life will end one day)  Doh  What I am trying to say is the guy is an overhyped egomaniac, whose contribution to science is almost zero.  And people need to get their heads around that fact.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by bogbrush on Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:13 pm

Just to check, do you know the difference between the singularity and the black hole, and what an event horizon is? I ask because the article you cite doesn’t even mention the former, and the question of an event horizon is neither here nor there.

As for his other views, well since I'm not in any way following his utterances they don’t matter, but even if I was they’d be as meaningful as Roger Federers football club allegiance is to his tennis. Hawking suffers from APOS (academic political opinion syndrome), where isolation from any form of commercial activity renders you incapable of processing real World data. Sitting in a chair for decades doesn’t help either,  and cheating on your wife like he did makes him quite the shit.

What are any of the other 99 explanations for the behaviour of thousands of stars frantically orbiting a black space in the same way they would be expected to orbit something weighing a few billion stars?

bogbrush

Posts : 1136
Join date : 2015-03-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Daniel on Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:25 pm

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/cosmic-clowning-stephen-hawkings-new-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

Relevant.

I am not discussing the finer details of the science - I am simply pointing out that you've substituted one dogma for another, BB.  Like Hawking. I have a more open mind when it comes to the universe and the actual overall answer - if there is one.  I don't discount it on flimsy math - make predictions out of nowhere - or try to pretend that the colour red is solely explained by neural connections in the brain [btw nor do a number of prominent scientists, including Penrose].  We are missing huge parts of the picture - and there will always be room for god (or prime mover) there in what is missing.  But religion is nonsense - on that we should all be clear. Thing is... a lot of modern "science" is too.

Daniel

Posts : 3093
Join date : 2013-11-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Tenez Yesterday at 10:40 am

Religion follows the same duality rules down here. We do not know how better or worse the world would be better without it. Plus I think we are all religious in the sense there is always something that keeps us going to keep us sane.

I can see for some - who think they are not religious - science and materialism is their religion. Dawkins for instance talks like an evangelist about it as if he were holding the Ultimate Truth. For them only science and matter dictates their way of life. This is very much the same religion described in the Golden Calf. The need to believe in something concrete which often (or always) has money and/or power strings attached (golden). Those people don't know they are submitted to the golden calf, they think themselves rational but take away money and power from them, their world collapses and you see many of them committing suicide when you have a financial crisis for instance.... or worse they are capable to exploit and destroy the planet for more money and doing more harm than any other Revealed religion.

Tenez

Posts : 17157
Join date : 2012-06-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: This Is What A Feminist Looks Like

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum