This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Inherently Evil
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Not really. The mass can be relatively stationary. That is just a formua for measureing the energy in mass. So if you took your mass, and multiplied it by the speed of light squared, you would come up with your net energy.
Post by
ASHelmy
Blood is
not
an essential source of life. Light doesn't "travel", as it exists in all reference frames. The number of stars
are
numerable, and we can even calculate when all the stars will cease to exist, because while matter and energy are finite, there is entropy, which says that the energy in the stars will cease to exist in that form at some point, because the chaos of the universe is always increasing. The Bible is decidedly wrong. You either do not know these things because you haven't learned them or because you choose not to believe them.
Light does travel. It takes 7? minutes to get to earth from the sun. Also it has mass, since it is affected by the gravity wells of black holes.
The number of stars might be innumerable when taken into account multiple universes. By this estimate though, everything is innumerable. And somewhere, out there, you, Skyfire, not only are a little more open minded, but I like you, maybe.
The energy in the stars may continue to exist in that form again, in another star.
None of this disproves the Bible.
You either do not know these things because you are to closed minded to see all the options, or because you choose not to believe them. Either way, you
might
be wrong. That's all I'm saying.
Ahh mytie, you continue to be awesome :D.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ASHelmy
While we are on that whole mass-energy equivalence thing. At school they say that a photon has mass, and we use E=mc^2 to calculate that mass, but everywhere else, all I could understand was that a photon is massless, and that E=mc^2 merely calculate the amount of energy a certain mass can converted into. So, which is right?
Post by
MyTie
O-o really... damn. maybe i miss interpeted the formula wrong... ill look into it.. but that was also the only topic i wanted to touch on because of the religion aspects of everything else. love knocking religion but im not doing that here. thanks mytie.
No problem. Come back later for a religious spar. I'd love to rattle you there.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
ASHelmy - Look at the formua. If you know what E is, and C, can't you logically deduce M? I'll make this very simple:
2= X - 4
What is X? 6 of course.
The second part about a photon having mass.... uh... if it has energy, it has to have mass. This is provable using entropy. I'll make this simple too: If something is moving, or degrading, or changing form at all, there has to be something in existance to measure the time involved in said movement.
Post by
MyTie
wait... you support religion or your critical of it?
I believe in God. I do not support any organized religions. I am a Christian.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
I believe in God. I do not support any organized religions. I am a Christian.
If you don't support organized religion then why do you give sermons at your church?
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I believe in God. I do not support any organized religions. I am a Christian.
If you don't support organized religion then why do you give sermons at your church?
I believe in the teachings of Christ. I follow them as closely as I can. He tells Christians to gather together for various things. So, I gather with other people who believe in the teachings of Christ. If anyone trys to organize us into a religeous higherarchy in addition to our following the teachings of Christ, we would reject that. Our beliefs answer to no one, unless commanded by Christ. It takes a very very studied mind to be able to tell the difference sometimes, due to the many deceptions and cheap immitations out there.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
You don't have to have a religious hierarchy for it to be organized religion.
Post by
MyTie
e/(c2) = m (I think)
It is unChristianly for a Christian to say that another person is going to Hell.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Light does travel. It takes 7? minutes to get to earth from the sun. Also it has mass, since it is affected by the gravity wells of black holes.
I will say again: Light doesn't "travel", at least not like you and I. Special relativity says as much, which is why I mentioned that light exists in all reference frames. If we consider that travel is the vector velocity is the vector displacement over the scalar time, then sure, it moves. And no, light does not have mass, but mass equivalency (or rather, proportionality). I will grant that it exhibits
some
properties of mass.
These two reasons are why we cannot accelerate (theoretically) mass to the speed of light: it would require an infinite acceleration, which would require infinite energy.
The number of stars might be innumerable when taken into account multiple universes. By this estimate though, everything is innumerable.
Who mentioned multiple universes? o.o
The energy in the stars may continue to exist in that form again, in another star.
No, it won't. There will come a point where the energy in the universe is not concentrated enough (due to entropy) to ignite and become a new star. Luckily, that point is billions of trillions of trillions of years away.
None of this disproves the Bible.
My intention here was not to disprove the Bible actually, but to disprove the point he made that the Bible is correct in all ways, shapes, and forms. Which, ironically, does end up discrediting the Bible in the way that you would discredit any source of information if you knew something in it was wrong.
You either do not know these things because you are to closed minded to see all the options, or because you choose not to believe them. Either way, you
might
be wrong. That's all I'm saying.
I'm surprised you even dared mention "closed minded" after seeing that YouTube video (if you didn't watch it, you should). That video made me wary of the term "close minded". I choose not to believe them (which is not to say I am atheist!) because I've got the filter of common sense still in place. Do you? Did you ever have that filter in place?
Creation is not proof of a creator.
Well, there are a lot of ways to take that statement, and so it depends on what viewpoint you were looking at it from.
Post by
307081
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
331344
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.