If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Into the Night]

Just a ticky-tack technicality but ... the vertical line test only applies to Cartesian (absolute) coordinates.

(x−a)^2 + (y−b)^2 = r^2 actually is a function if considered in polar coordinates, i.e. (r-cos(θ)-a)² + (r-sin(θ)-b)² = r² is the same circle but in polar coordinates, and is a function.

The first equation is the Cartesian form and is not a function. The 2nd equation is the Polar form and is a function.

 

[Monad Portal]

The first equation is the Cartesian form and is not a function. The 2nd equation is the Polar form and is a function.

If using polar coordinates, the radius test replaces the vertical line test. If you rotate an infinitely long radius line 360 degrees and it only intersects at one point for any given θ, it is a function. <---from ibdaman

 

[Into the Night]

If using polar coordinates, the radius test replaces the vertical line test. If you rotate an infinitely long radius line 360 degrees and it only intersects at one point for any given θ, it is a function.

He's lost. Circles don't have vertical lines.

 

[Monad Portal]

and gravity is still consistent.

it's weakens and strengthens predictably according to distance and mass.

 

[Monad Portal]

He's lost. Circles don't have vertical lines.

If using polar coordinates, the radius test replaces the vertical line test. If you rotate an infinitely long radius line 360 degrees and it only intersects at one point for any given θ, it is a function.

 

[Into the Night]

Ideas, minds, souls, conscience, imagination, math, values, ethics, creativity are immaterial and come from the animate. You are not just simply a collection of quarks and electrons.

What is 'The Animate'?

Physicists wouldn't have bothered coming up with names like quarks, electrons, and muons unless they were considered a special case for how quantum energy fields vibrate and interact. Particles and matter are constituents of the language used in physics.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum energy field'.
All matter has mass.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for tacitly admitting you totally forgot that immaterial realities (conscience, values, imagination, rationality, etc.) come from the animate and are inextricably linked to the animate.

What is 'The Animate'?

Feel free to make the case to the National Academies of Science that we don't need words and concepts for particles and matter like quarks, electrons, neutrons.

Science isn't an academy. He never claimed quarks don't exist. He never claimed electrons don't exist. He never claimed neutrons don't exist.

You are mindlessly chanting again.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm sure that's what concepts in physics sound like to high school dropouts.

Buzzwords and mindless chanting that you do are not physics.

 

[Into the Night]

You were the one who complained about my use of matter and energy.

He never did. Synthesis. Stop making shit up.
Buzzwords are not matter or energy. Buzzwords are meaningless.

That's straightforward particle physics.

You aren't discussing particle physics.

You must not value them much, because you tried to reduce the animate (aka, life) to just matter and energy - and totally ignored that the immaterial realities like conscience, imagination, values are part of the animate and inextricably linked to it.

What is 'The Animate'?
How do you define 'life'?

 

[Into the Night]

Matter and energy are interchangeable, E = MC^2.

No, they aren't. This is only part of the equation. Mass can have energy, and energy can be expressed as moving mass, but they are not the same.

If you burn the mass in a fire, you still have the same mass (just organized differently).
If you put a mass in a nuclear reactor and knock bits off with neutrons, you still have the same mass (the two neutrons you knocked off still exist!). Indeed, those two neutrons are vitally important to keep the reaction going.

But the language of physics still treats the particle zoo of quarks and leptons as special and distinct particles of matter.

Just as it still treats the molecular zoo of chemicals as distinct particles of matter.

There is nothing 'special' about any of them.

The idea from quantum field theory that particles are just vibrations of the underlying quantum field is currently just a theory, and may or may not be ultimately correct.

There is no such thing as a 'quantum field theory' or a 'quantum field'. Buzzword fallacies.

You wouldn't follow me around and read everything I write if you actually thought that. Dumb gets boring real fast.

Feeling paranoid now? Feel like you're being stalked by someone?

 

[IBDaMann]

Matter and energy are interchangeable,

Nope. If you weren't such a scientifically illiterate moron, you'd apply some critical reasoning to things you are told to believe, instead of rushing to regurgitate every stupidity you find on the internet.

E = MC^2.

This is what is known as an "equation.". It means that two numerical values are the same. It does not mean that what the numerical values represent are somehow interchangeable. Example: there is one desk for each student ...

Desks = Students​

Does this mean that desks and students are somehow interchangeable? No, it does not.

I'm surprised that you never learned this but I'm glad we're finally clearing it up. Your next step, and this is an important one, is to have a discussion with @Into the Night about units of measure and how they relate to "equations".

But the language of physics still treats the particle zoo of quarks and leptons as special and distinct particles of matter.

There is neither any such science nor any such language.

The idea from quantum field theory that particles are just vibrations of the underlying quantum field is currently just a theory, and may or may not be ultimately correct.

This statement doesn't differentiate any wild quantum speculation from any valid science. You should have written that there is no technology based on that theory.

You wouldn't follow me around and read everything I write if you actually thought that.

Too funny! Two fallacies for the price of one.

1. I think everything I say that I think.
2. It's hilarious that you refer to responses as "following you around."

Dumb gets boring real fast.

Tell me about it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Do you have an equation for everything you believe to be true or untrue and your level of confidence? How confident are you that water is 2 parts Hydrogen and 1 part Oxygen and can you show your math for it?

No, but I can show someone else's math for it.

Any thoughts you have about which is more probable that "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"...ARE NOTHING BUT BLIND GUESSES. I doubt you will soon develop the maturity or integrity to acknowledge that.

Nope. I'm taking various pieces of information into consideration when coming to my conclusion and my degree of confidence.https://able2know.org/topic/594690-1

Yeah...your blind guess. That is what the theists do also. That bothers the shit out of you.

Okay...it should since you have so much contempt for theists for doing it.

Among those pieces of information, I consider the state of the world when man was believing in and writing about gods and the claims they made. I also consider the state of the world now and the fact that the same gods who were allegedly so active in the world have completely vanished.

That does not mean shit about whether there are any gods or not. Take a lesson in logic, Boy.

Seems to be an interesting coincidence that gods have all but vanished as man has become more educated about science, the world/solar system, etc.

Some have always been invisible. They haven't vanished. Didn't you know that? Where have you been?

Anyway...I hope all your blind guesses about gods are great for you in 2026...and that you continue to think your blind guesses are scientific and logical...and the blind guesses of the religionists you seem to detest are not.

 

[Jake Starkey]

A blind guess. That is what the atheists and theists do also

 

[Into the Night]

it is.

Nope. Not even the gravity felt by a satellite as it passes over the surface of the Earth is consistent. That's why corrections are needed for their orbit calculations. This correction is built into the GPS constellation, for example, by using ground stations to reference by.

Earth has different densities from place to place on the surface, you see.

The gravity at the Moon is different from the gravity at the Earth.

The gravity at any point in space is a combination of all particles in space, along with the distance to them.

Even Newton has shown that gravity is not consistent. His theory of gravitational attraction has never been falsified.

F=G(m1*m2)/r^2
where F = gravitational force in Newtons,
G is a constant (6.674 * 10^-11),
m1 and m2 are two masses,
and r is the radius between them (their centers of mass), in meters.

This equation works anywhere on or in the Earth or in space.

F is the sum of the effect of all particles at any point in space.

It is why Jupiter can cause a 'tide' on the Sun.
It is why the Moon doesn't orbit the Earth. They orbit each other around a point called the barycenter (about 2900 miles from the center of Earth, just 1050 miles below the surface).

The inconsistent gravity is what causes the tides to rise and fall twice a day.
Even the land has a 'tide'. It rises and falls due to the inconsistent gravity twice a day, just as the sea near a shoreline does...just not as much.

And Earth does the same to the Moon. The only difference is that the Moon has no ocean.

There are five points called Lagrange points, where the gravitional forces between Earth and Moon are balanced. A satellite place there will stay there. Two of them require no fuel to stay there at all (like being at the bottom of a valley). The other three can stay there, but require continuous small course corrections due to other forces pushing them away (like balancing on top of a peak).

Gravity is inconsistent. It is not the same everywhere.

 

[Into the Night]

and gravity is still consistent.

it's weakens and strengthens predictably according to distance and mass.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Monad Portal]

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

dumbest shit ever.

 

[Into the Night]

A blind guess. That is what the atheists and theists do also

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox, Sybil.

 

[Into the Night]

dumbest shit ever.

Yes it is. It is YOUR paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

You tried to reduce the animate (aka, life) to just physics (matter and energy), and were subsequently humbled and embarrassed when I reminded you that immaterial realities like conscience, imagination, values, ideas are part and parcel of the animate.

What is 'The Animate'?

 

[Into the Night]

And factually incomplete. Almost laughably incomplete.
Because no theory of physics accounts for or explains consciousness, values, imagination, conscience, ideas, beliefs, ethics, creativity.

Why would it?
No theory of physics accounts for the existance of the Universe either.