Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #502641 > unrolled thread

Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 06:21 -0400
    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 10:44 -0400
      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about David Staup <dstaup@charter.net> - 2015-06-26 10:32 -0500
      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 11:36 -0400
        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-06-26 19:20 -0400
          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 04:58 -0400
            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 10:54 -0400
              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 12:10 -0400
                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 18:19 -0400
                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:22 -0400
                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 12:23 -0400
                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 14:11 -0400
                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-06-30 12:26 -0500
                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 06:13 -0400
                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-01 12:02 -0500
                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 13:06 -0500
                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net> - 2015-07-01 13:22 -0500
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 11:34 -0700
                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 14:34 -0500
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 14:57 -0700
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 07:19 -0400
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-02 07:52 -0700
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 11:44 -0400
                                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:34 -0400
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:22 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:29 -0400
                                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 20:17 -0400
                                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 06:23 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-02 11:59 -0700
                                      As entropy thins mass, space_time expands. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-07-02 14:57 -0700
                                        Re: As entropy thins mass, space_time expands. Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 16:32 -0700
                                          "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-07-02 18:03 -0700
                                            Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 18:16 -0700
                                              R.I.P. Gravity. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-07-02 18:49 -0700
                                                Re: R.I.P. Gravity. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 01:52 -0400
                                              Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 01:55 -0400
                                                Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 23:32 -0700
                                                Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-03 04:47 -0700
                                            Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-03 14:30 +0000
                                              R.I.P. Gravity. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-07-03 14:57 -0700
                                            Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy). Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-03 11:38 -0700
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 00:06 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 06:31 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 10:51 -0500
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about MattB <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 17:56 -0700
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:56 -0500
                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 16:32 -0700
                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:55 -0500
                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 14:36 -0400
                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-01 18:29 -0700
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 20:55 -0500
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 06:28 -0400
                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 03:48 -0700
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 07:21 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 04:34 -0700
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 07:46 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:32 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 00:02 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:28 -0400
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-02 11:58 -0700
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Olrik <olrik666@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 00:03 -0400
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:59 -0500
                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:19 -0400
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 13:35 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 20:19 -0400
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-02 18:32 -0700
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-03 06:35 -0400
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-02 12:01 -0700
                                    Re: Ben_Jacoby perverts science to justify his dreams. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 20:57 -0400
                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:58 -0500
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 06:35 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-04 09:00 -0500
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 12:14 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-05 09:09 -0500
                                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 07:13 -0400
                                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-06 14:18 -0500
                                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 18:12 -0400
                                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-07 08:03 -0500
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-04 09:24 -0700
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-05 09:10 -0500
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 12:09 -0400
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 12:32 -0400
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 16:53 -0400
                                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-05 06:02 -0400
                                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-05 06:55 -0700
                                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 02:06 -0400
                                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-06 07:20 -0400
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:58 -0500
                            Re: The (4D) timescape is static. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-01 22:20 -0400
                              Re: The (4D) timescape is static. benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 00:25 -0400
                            Re: The (4D) timescape is static. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-02 16:44 +0000
                              Re: Gravitational exergy is being consumed away. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-03 01:39 +0000
                                Re: Gravitational exergy is being consumed away. Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-07-02 20:44 -0500
                                  Re: Gravitational exergy is being consumed away. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-07-02 20:19 -0700
                                Re: Jeff Relf smells like aspie. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-07-03 14:24 +0000
                            Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-03 16:57 -0500
                              Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 06:40 -0400
                                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-04 09:00 -0500
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-04 07:51 -0700
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-05 09:12 -0500
                                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about talishi <talishi@example.net> - 2015-07-05 08:56 -0700
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-07-05 11:15 -0500
                                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-05 16:59 -0500
                                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-07-04 12:15 -0400
                                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> - 2015-07-05 09:13 -0500
                Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-27 18:59 -0700
                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-27 23:29 -0400
                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:32 -0400
                      Re: The anonymous troll who occationally calls himself "HVAC". Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-06-28 08:24 -0700
                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 12:36 -0400
                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2015-06-27 22:40 -0700
                  Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 06:26 -0400
                    Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 12:28 -0400
                      Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> - 2015-06-28 14:49 -0400
                        Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-29 01:53 -0400
                          Re: What Causes Gravity -- Something to think about benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-06-30 01:25 -0400

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#504386 — Re: "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy).

"Jeff-Relf.Me"  wrote in message 
news:Jeff-Relf.Me@Jul.2{6.03P.Seattle.2015}...

Replying to me, you (Siri_Cruz) wrote:
> > As entropy thins mass, space_time expands.
>
> Entropy no more thins mass than a clock chops carrots.

Likely, "Heat Death" (thermodynamic equilibrium, maximum entropy)
is the fate of the cosmos.

Wikipedia says: ＜＜

  [[the Sun spews]] 4.26 million metric tons per second,
  for 384.6 yotta watts (3.846×10^26 W),
  or 9.192×10^10 megatons of TNT per second.  ＞＞

> > The known Universe is cooling and the distances
> > between the galaxies is growing exponentionally;
> > i.e. gravitational exergy is being consumed away.
>
> Gravitational potential energy increases as masses are separated.

As mass dissipates, gravity itself is consumed away;
eventually, there'll be relatively none left.


*** Are you in competition with Beeert to see who
can come with the most outlandish crap ??? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504245

Le 2015-07-02 07:19, HVAC a écrit :
> On 7/1/2015 5:57 PM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:08 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2015 1:34 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>> What about Dark Energy?;-)
>>>
>>> What about it? It's a testable hypothesis.
>>
>> Is it?
>
>
> Dark energy is 'merely' a property of space. It expands.

Your comment made me think of a sex joke, from which I will prematurely 
shrink from.


-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504268

On 7/3/2015 12:06 AM, Olrik wrote:
> Le 2015-07-02 07:19, HVAC a écrit :
>> On 7/1/2015 5:57 PM, MattB wrote:
>>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:08 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/1/2015 1:34 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>>> What about Dark Energy?;-)
>>>>
>>>> What about it? It's a testable hypothesis.
>>>
>>> Is it?
>>
>>
>> Dark energy is 'merely' a property of space. It expands.
>
> Your comment made me think of a sex joke, from which I will prematurely
> shrink from.
>
>

"Hey there was only cold water in the shower!"



-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504051

On 7/1/2015 4:57 PM, MattB wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:08 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/1/2015 1:34 PM, MattB wrote:
>>> What about Dark Energy?;-)
>>
>> What about it? It's a testable hypothesis.
>
> Is it?
>
>

Yes, it is. There are tests underway.

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504211

On Thu, 02 Jul 2015 10:51:45 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 7/1/2015 4:57 PM, MattB wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 14:34:08 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/1/2015 1:34 PM, MattB wrote:
>>>> What about Dark Energy?;-)
>>>
>>> What about it? It's a testable hypothesis.
>>
>> Is it?
>>
>>
>
>Yes, it is. There are tests underway.

Didn't know they had a real world test for that.  Good.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504443

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:22:51 -0500, Tom McDonald <tmcdonald2672@charter.net>
wrote:

>On 7/1/2015 1:06 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 7/1/2015 12:02 PM, duke wrote:
>>> That's right.  I just thought that maybe you could offer an answer of
>>> why 2
>>> bodies attract rather than deflect.  You know, an answer other than
>>> "well,
>>> that's the way God wants it."
>>
>> Well, interestingly, there are physics answers to that question, but I'm
>> not really sure if you have an interest in it.
>>
>> The point being made here is that even if you're not aware of an answer
>> here, that doesn't mean that nobody knows the answer.
>>
>> Now of course, any explanation that is offered always begs the question,
>> "But why is it this way, as opposed to some other possible way?" And
>> there is no possible termination to that chain of questioning. There is
>> no possible explanation where the only response would be, "Well, OK
>> then. I guess I can't ask anything else, because it's all there." Nor
>> does science ever hope to get to that point.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean that the only reasonable termination to that line
>> of questioning is, "It's because God chose it to be that way." The
>> futility of that answer is easily illustrated if you can imagine a
>> conversation like this:
>> "Why did Bob die? I'll tell you why. It's because God chose to have him
>> die. What other explanation do you have?"
>> "Well, Bob died because of general organ failure."
>> "But why did his organs fail? Do you have an explanation, or is it
>> because God selected the organs and commanded them to fail?"
>> "Organs fail because the biochemistry is disrupted, and good chemicals
>> needed to support the organs aren't there, and there is an accumulation
>> of bad chemicals."
>> "But why is there a disruption of the biochemistry? I'll bet you have no
>> explanation other than God commanding the biochemistry to change."
>> "Well, as I understand it, the production of enzymes and proteins
>> necessary for biochemical synthesis is by making copies from RNA and
>> DNA, and that becomes more error-prone with every cell replication and
>> every RNA transcription. That's why chromosomes have these teleomeres
>> that prevent replication after so many divisions, and then the cell
>> auto-destruct mechanism kicks in."
>> "But why is there gradual deterioration of the copy-making process? Is
>> it because God has commanded it?"
>> "No, I think it is because of a variety of small influences, like
>> background radiation breaking certain bonds and other things like that."
>> "But why is there background radiation? Is it because God uses that to
>> eventually make people die?"
>>
>> I'm sure you see the pointlessness of that chain of conversation. Here
>> you have a person who is oblivious to what explanations there actually
>> are available, and is instead only interested in the place where the
>> explanations stop and the "because God wills it" is not challenged by
>> another layer of explanation.
>>
>I wouldn't be so certain that our Duckie will see the pointlessness of 
>the issue. 

The key is that God decided.  No failure mechanism, just that it's going to be
this way because I, God, said so.

>To him, a pat answer is fine, if it's 'goddunit'. But watch 
>out for the wrath of Dog if *he* should be unsatisfied with a pat, or 
>even a well-reasoned and fully evidenced, answer. He's funny like that.
>

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504191

tht is cOOl, but not oo-ie

> "Well, as I understand it, the production of enzymes and proteins 
> necessary for biochemical synthesis is by making copies from RNA and 
> DNA, and that becomes more error-prone with every cell replication and 
> every RNA transcription. That's why chromosomes have these teleomeres 
> that prevent replication after so many divisions, and then the cell 
> auto-destruct mechanism kicks in."
> "But why is there gradual deterioration of the copy-making process? Is 
> it because God has commanded it?"
> "No, I think it is because of a variety of small influences, like 
> background radiation breaking certain bonds and other things like that."
> "But why is there background radiation? Is it because God uses that to 
> eventually make people die?"
> 
> I'm sure you see the pointlessness of that chain of conversation. Here 
> you have a person who is oblivious to what explanations there actually 
> are available, and is instead only interested in the place where the 
> explanations stop and the "because God wills it" is not challenged by 
> another layer of explanation.
> 
> >
> > the dukester, American-American
> >
> > *****
> > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> > Pope Paul VI
> > *****
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504441

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 13:06:36 -0500, Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 7/1/2015 12:02 PM, duke wrote:
>> That's right.  I just thought that maybe you could offer an answer of why 2
>> bodies attract rather than deflect.  You know, an answer other than "well,
>> that's the way God wants it."
>
>Well, interestingly, there are physics answers to that question, but I'm 
>not really sure if you have an interest in it.
>
>The point being made here is that even if you're not aware of an answer 
>here, that doesn't mean that nobody knows the answer.

Ok, waiting on you .

>Now of course, any explanation that is offered always begs the question, 
>"But why is it this way, as opposed to some other possible way?" 

That's what I said.

>And 
>there is no possible termination to that chain of questioning. 

Then you just lost.

>There is 
>no possible explanation where the only response would be, "Well, OK 
>then. I guess I can't ask anything else, because it's all there." Nor 
>does science ever hope to get to that point.
>
>But that doesn't mean that the only reasonable termination to that line 
>of questioning is, "It's because God chose it to be that way." The 
>futility of that answer is easily illustrated if you can imagine a 
>conversation like this:
>"Why did Bob die? I'll tell you why. It's because God chose to have him 
>die. What other explanation do you have?"
>"Well, Bob died because of general organ failure."
>"But why did his organs fail? Do you have an explanation, or is it 
>because God selected the organs and commanded them to fail?"
>"Organs fail because the biochemistry is disrupted, and good chemicals 
>needed to support the organs aren't there, and there is an accumulation 
>of bad chemicals."
>"But why is there a disruption of the biochemistry? I'll bet you have no 
>explanation other than God commanding the biochemistry to change."
>"Well, as I understand it, the production of enzymes and proteins 
>necessary for biochemical synthesis is by making copies from RNA and 
>DNA, and that becomes more error-prone with every cell replication and 
>every RNA transcription. That's why chromosomes have these teleomeres 
>that prevent replication after so many divisions, and then the cell 
>auto-destruct mechanism kicks in."
>"But why is there gradual deterioration of the copy-making process? Is 
>it because God has commanded it?"
>"No, I think it is because of a variety of small influences, like 
>background radiation breaking certain bonds and other things like that."
>"But why is there background radiation? Is it because God uses that to 
>eventually make people die?"

>I'm sure you see the pointlessness of that chain of conversation. 

Yet everything you presented is based on failure consideration.

>Here 
>you have a person who is oblivious to what explanations there actually 
>are available, and is instead only interested in the place where the 
>explanations stop and the "because God wills it" is not challenged by 
>another layer of explanation.

And God could have decided that gravity would push rather than attract.  Why is
it this way and not that way, or both ways for neither.  The only viable answer
is that "it's God's decision".   It's took God to make the decision.  Or else it
was just one massive mistake.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#503923

On 7/1/2015 1:02 PM, duke wrote:
>
>>> God directed that gravity is.  If you can find an alternative reason, please let
>>> me know.
>
>> Why would I let you know? You already HAVE all the answers you need.
>
> That's right.  I just thought that maybe you could offer an answer of why 2
> bodies attract rather than deflect.  You know, an answer other than "well,
> that's the way God wants it."


Why does 2 + 2 = 4?

Science attempts to describe the world through observation and 
experiment. We call these 'laws', but really they are descriptions of 
what we observe.

So, to answer your question. It is what it is.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#503980

On 07/01/2015 11:36 AM, HVAC wrote:
>
> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?

Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have 
x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#503985

On 7/1/15 8:29 PM, talishi wrote:
> On 07/01/2015 11:36 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
>
> Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
> x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".

   Now just a minute:
> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eD1vQu2Tw70/Tjygse2dLcI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/qdzqdIJTpJk/s1600/joke00.gif


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504018

On 7/1/2015 9:29 PM, talishi wrote:
> On 07/01/2015 11:36 AM, HVAC wrote:
>>
>> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
>
> Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
> x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".


Exactly. It is what it is.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504022

In article <mn33l8$loj$2@dont-email.me>, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/1/2015 9:29 PM, talishi wrote:
> > On 07/01/2015 11:36 AM, HVAC wrote:
> >>
> >> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
> >
> > Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
> > x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".
> 
> 
> Exactly. It is what it is.

Actually, no. In modulus 3, for example, 2+2 = 1. Without reference to the 
axioms defining '2' '+' '=' '4' and their relations, the expession meaningless. 
You can set up an axiom scheme with the Peano axioms the defines decimal 
notation and then prove it for natural numbers, but that would only apply to 
naturals and any set containing them (like integers and reals).

And providing a model for naturals doesn't prove anything.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504026

On 7/2/2015 6:48 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
>>>
>>> Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
>>> x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".
>>
>>
>> Exactly. It is what it is.
>
> Actually, no. In modulus 3, for example, 2+2 = 1. Without reference to the
> axioms defining '2' '+' '=' '4' and their relations, the expession meaningless.
> You can set up an axiom scheme with the Peano axioms the defines decimal
> notation and then prove it for natural numbers, but that would only apply to
> naturals and any set containing them (like integers and reals).
>
> And providing a model for naturals doesn't prove anything.


Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of 
this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.

Obviously, I was wrong.




-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504028

In article <mn36ot$1ni$2@dont-email.me>, HVAC <Mr.HVAC@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7/2/2015 6:48 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> >
> >>>>
> >>>> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
> >>>
> >>> Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
> >>> x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".
> >>
> >>
> >> Exactly. It is what it is.
> >
> > Actually, no. In modulus 3, for example, 2+2 = 1. Without reference to the
> > axioms defining '2' '+' '=' '4' and their relations, the expession 
> > meaningless.
> > You can set up an axiom scheme with the Peano axioms the defines decimal
> > notation and then prove it for natural numbers, but that would only apply 
> > to
> > naturals and any set containing them (like integers and reals).
> >
> > And providing a model for naturals doesn't prove anything.
> 
> 
> Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of 
> this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.
> 
> Obviously, I was wrong.

Modulus and radix are different concepts. '+' can also be defined as a 
noncommunitive operator depending on the axioms.

-- 
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504029

On 7/2/2015 7:34 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>
>> Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of
>> this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.
>>
>> Obviously, I was wrong.
>
> Modulus and radix are different concepts. '+' can also be defined as a
> noncommunitive operator depending on the axioms.


Siri, I prostrate myself before you in humility and fear.
I beg you to accept my sincere apology.

Will you? Can you?

My very self worth hangs precariously upon your answer.

I await your reply, breath bated.


-- 
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504082

On 07/02/2015 07:46 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 7/2/2015 7:34 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>
>>> Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of
>>> this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I was wrong.
>>
>> Modulus and radix are different concepts. '+' can also be defined as a
>> noncommunitive operator depending on the axioms.
>
>
> Siri, I prostrate myself before you in humility and fear.
> I beg you to accept my sincere apology.
>
> Will you? Can you?
>
> My very self worth hangs precariously upon your answer.
>
> I await your reply, breath bated.

Harlow prostrates himself in fear and worship when confronted with the 
actual scientific knowledge that HE has been claiming to possess!

Next he will be calling Siri "insane" and a "kook". Tell us how Siri is 
"frothing", Harlow. Isn't that your usual response?  You are a Hoot!



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504243

Le 2015-07-02 07:46, HVAC a écrit :
> On 7/2/2015 7:34 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>
>>> Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of
>>> this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.
>>>
>>> Obviously, I was wrong.
>>
>> Modulus and radix are different concepts. '+' can also be defined as a
>> noncommunitive operator depending on the axioms.
>
>
> Siri, I prostrate myself before you in humility and fear.
> I beg you to accept my sincere apology.
>
> Will you? Can you?
>
> My very self worth hangs precariously upon your answer.
>
> I await your reply, breath bated.

+1

-- 
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504078

On 07/02/2015 07:21 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 7/2/2015 6:48 AM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why does 2 + 2 = 4?
>>>>
>>>> Because when you have two things, and you add two more things, you have
>>>> x things, and long ago people decided to call x "four".
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. It is what it is.
>>
>> Actually, no. In modulus 3, for example, 2+2 = 1. Without reference to
>> the
>> axioms defining '2' '+' '=' '4' and their relations, the expession
>> meaningless.
>> You can set up an axiom scheme with the Peano axioms the defines decimal
>> notation and then prove it for natural numbers, but that would only
>> apply to
>> naturals and any set containing them (like integers and reals).
>>
>> And providing a model for naturals doesn't prove anything.
>
>
> Please accept my deepest and most humble apology. For the purposes of
> this discussion I didn't feel it necessary to add 'in base 10'.
>
> Obviously, I was wrong.

Obviously. I already told you that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, but all you 
do is deny and call anyone correcting you a "kook". You have NO idea 
what you need to add. Base 10 doesn't do it, Harlow. I have two vectors 
of length 2 and add them. Is the sum 4? No. What part of "the expression 
is meaningless" don't you understand.

Apology accepted.


-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#504124

On 07/02/2015 10:28 AM, benj wrote:
> Obviously. I already told you that 2 + 2 does not equal 4, but all you
> do is deny and call anyone correcting you a "kook". You have NO idea
> what you need to add. Base 10 doesn't do it, Harlow. I have two vectors
> of length 2 and add them. Is the sum 4? No. What part of "the expression
> is meaningless" don't you understand.

Mathematics made simple:

1. You have twenty dollars.
2. Your wife has five dollars.

Therefore

3. Your wife has twenty-five dollars.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web