Jump to content

Who can close a #3 Ronnie Coleman style?


Alawadhi

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Hopefully said:

Everything's a theory 

No... 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. Water is wet, that’s a fact. What goes up, must come down, that’s a fact. There are constants and things that do not change in this world and can be seen as fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hopefully said:

I disagree. 

I think everything can and should be questioned, by accepting something as absolute truth you imprison your mind. I prefer being free and not bound. Although my mind still is bound in many ways, seeing as we aren't all that complicated as we'd like to think sometimes. Which actually is even more reason to not accept things as absolute truth. 

I do not wish for debate though. 

No debate, but, how is water anything but wet? And 1 plus 1  equals 2 .... how is that possibly not true? There is absolute truth with things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theories aren’t guesses

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mike Rinderle said:

0 8180a12bf55f4d78c6fcf204e4ec00db.jpg

Thats an awesome set of words.       

In one way, numbers are a man made systematic language to describe the physical world. In reality you cant truly measure an object because it can be broken down to a more ''zoomed'' in detailed measure. More of an estimation not fact. A whole number has an infinite unmeasurable amount of numbers between them. To describe an objects measurment as 2 when in fact it is 2.0000115 etc infinite amount of digits etc.    

Edited by Viceversus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No... 1 plus 1 is 2. That is a fact. Water is wet, that’s a fact. What goes up, must come down, that’s a fact. There are constants and things that do not change in this world and can be seen as fact. 

The fact that something falls is explained by the theory of gravity. So, it’s still just a theory. Scientific theories are basically a body of work which have been formed to explain a large set of many different facts. Which then lets us be able to predict other research. For instance, the theory of gravity explains that things with mass are attracted to each other. This knowledge lets us predict that if you throw something in the air, it will not only fall, but actually accelerate with a speed of 9.82 meters per seconds (at least until the air resistance is equal to the acceleration).

I’m not going to go any deeper than this. It’s true that science is often abused for political and religious arguments. It’s not uncommon to see people say something like “because the fact A is true, it means that B and C is false”. And that’s simply not how science works. Sure, like I said, science can be used to ”predict” things. But they are still just predictions, they could still be wrong. And when they are, it means that the theory was not completely accurate and needs to be changed in order to explain any new findings that the old theory wasn’t able to predict. A good example of this is the atomic model which have changed several times over the past few hundred years as new things have been discovered. Funny fact is that the atomic model that is taught in school is actually an oversimplification of an old model, it’s actually known with 100 % certainty that it is incorrect. But the model is sufficient enough to explain most things, and the newest atomic model is too complicated for new students to learn. So they get taught the easier incorrect version 😂

BTW, I’m no scientist. In Sweden “scientist” is a protected title which basically requires you to be at least post-doc. Which I’m not. But I do work with scientific research.

Edited by David_wigren
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

The fact that something falls is explained by the theory of gravity. So, it’s still just a theory. Scientific theories are basically a body of work which have been formed to explain a large set of many different facts. Which then lets us be able to predict other research. For instance, the theory of gravity explains that things with mass are attracted to each other. This knowledge lets us predict that if you throw something in the air, it will not only fall, but actually accelerate with a speed of 9.82 meters per seconds (at least until the air resistance is equal to the acceleration).

I’m not going to go any deeper than this. It’s true that science is often abused for political and religious arguments. It’s not uncommon to see people say something like “because the fact A is true, it means that B and C is false”. And that’s simply not how science works. Sure, like I said, science can be used to ”predict” things. But they are still just predictions, they could still be wrong. And when they are, it means that the theory was not completely accurate and needs to be changed in order to explain any new findings that the old theory wasn’t able to predict. A good example of this is the atomic model which have changed several times over the past few hundred years as new things have been discovered. Funny fact is that the atomic model that is taught in school is actually an oversimplification of an old model, it’s actually known with 100 % certainty that it is incorrect. But the model is sufficient enough to explain most things, and the newest atomic model is too complicated for new students to learn. So they get taught the easier incorrect version 😂

BTW, I’m no scientist. In Sweden “scientist” is a protected title which basically requires you to be at least post-doc. Which I’m not. But I do work with scientific research.

No matter how you want to slice it... theory is a thought or an idea of how someone THINKS things are.... it is not fact... otherwise it would be called scientific fact and not theory. Neil Degrasse Tyson Himself stated “ we do not know what gravity is”... so it is a theory. It’s some “magical force”.... I don’t think so.... they have no idea what it really is, just like all the other theories they have. The “Big Bang “ is another huge example of  theory. That we buy as word...they have zero way of proving, measuring, testing or observing, and where did the supposed “nothing” that exploded into all we see come from?? Nothing means nothing, and scientists today cannot make something fr nothing, only from existing materials. Where did the first “nothing” appear from and how did it explode? So, no matter what they tell us... they don’t know jack. They weren’t there, and there is only pseudo scientific proof. That’s why it’s not called fact.....anyway..: moving on... sorry for opening a can of worms.... back to the theory of Joe Kinney or the original title of the thread!! 🤡

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No debate, but, how is water anything but wet? And 1 plus 1  equals 2 .... how is that possibly not true? There is absolute truth with things. 

Water is not wet when it is a solid (ice) or gas (steam)

I couldn't resist.  😈

Edited by Mike Rinderle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

Water is not wet when it is a solid (ice) or gas (steam)

It is one of the 3.... but yes, it is still “wet” Rindo.... it is made up of H2O so it still has moisture.... moisture is wet....  you just described water (wet) in its 3 states. Can’t have ice or steam without wet water..

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

It is one of the 3.... but yes, it is still “wet” Rindo.... it is made up of H2O so it still has moisture.... moisture is wet....  you just described water (wet) in its 3 states. Can’t have ice or steam without wet water..

Nope.  Only in liquid form.  

Everything is wet in liquid form.  Molten steel is "wet."  Being made up of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms doesn't make something magically wet.  It is a solid in its ice form and is not "wet."

But how bout that Ronnie Coleman!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shoggoth said:

Theories aren’t guesses

Definition of theory is  a supposition or series of ideas.... intended to explain something. A supposition is an uncertain belief, the definition of an uncertain belief is that they don’t really know ... the theory  is having faith in that belief or idea, such as the Big Bang. They come up with educated guesses as to what and why things are. I stand by my original statement that they are just guessing and proven wrong quite often and have no way of proving half of what they say .... I’m sorry I mentioned this.... Daves meme intrigued me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

No matter how you want to slice it... theory is a thought or an idea of how someone THINKS things are.... it is not fact... otherwise it would be called scientific fact and not theory. Neil Degrasse Tyson Himself stated “ we do not know what gravity is”... so it is a theory. It’s some “magical force”.... I don’t think so.... they have no idea what it really is, just like all the other theories they have. The “Big Bang “ is another huge example of  theory. That we buy as word...they have zero way of proving, measuring, testing or observing, and where did the supposed “nothing” that exploded into all we see come from?? Nothing means nothing, and scientists today cannot make something fr nothing, only from existing materials. Where did the first “nothing” appear from and how did it explode? So, no matter what they tell us... they don’t know jack. They weren’t there, and there is only pseudo scientific proof. That’s why it’s not called fact.....anyway..: moving on

I’m far from an expert on astrophysics. And yes, the theory of the big bang is perhaps not one of the most solid theories out there. But it did predict the background radiation levels many decades before it was discovered, with pretty good accuracy. It’s also been pretty good at explaining the rate at which the observable universe is expanding and probably a whole bunch of things that I don’t know about.

You are incorrect. Researchers have created matter and antimatter from nothing. It’s been proven with the work made in the large Hadron collider. Tiny particles of matter and antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time, everywhere.

I respect you Joe. It’s good to be skeptical. But you seem to be overly skeptical. Almost to the point where you seem to actually be choosing to believe in some statements over others to confirm your own bias. You seem quick to dismiss so many things when you don’t even have a layman’s understanding of it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

Nope.  Only in liquid form.  

Everything is wet in liquid form.  Molten steel is "wet."  Being made up of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms doesn't make something magically wet.  It is a solid in its ice form and is not "wet."

But how bout that Ronnie Coleman!

Yea.... how bout em...🤡🤡🤡  ⛽️  💧 🥶

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m far from an expert on astrophysics. And yes, the theory of the big bang is perhaps not one of the most solid theories out there. But it did predict the background radiation levels many decades before it was discovered, with pretty good accuracy. It’s also been pretty good at explaining the rate at which the observable universe is expanding and probably a whole bunch of things that I don’t know about.

You are incorrect. Researchers have created matter and antimatter from nothing. It’s been proven with the work made in the large Hadron collider. Tiny particles of matter and antimatter pop in and out of existence all the time, everywhere.

I respect you Joe. It’s good to be skeptical. But you seem to be overly skeptical. Almost to the point where you seem to actually be choosing to believe in some statements over others to confirm your own bias. You seem quick to dismiss so many things when you don’t even have a layman’s understanding of it. 

 

Sorry Dave... they have not created something from nothing. Can you please show me this? They can’t make dirt from non dirt, water without water or wood without the existence of the materials no matter how hard they try. Cannot make it Dave. . You can’t get all the world that you see from nothing exploding. And until they can prove it... I’m calling BS.... that’s what they conveniently say... “oh you just don’t understand”.... yeaaaa then show and explain and prove!!!! And the ones that question what we are told are crazy? It’s actually crazy NOT to question these things... just don’t pay attention to what’s behind the curtain!! 🤡🤡 I want you to show me, Dave, how scientists say they made something from nothing.... not just what they tell you. Just like Kinney’s gripper close.... show me the video!!!! 🤡🤡🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's right. Virtual particles are always popping into existence and vanishing, even around you right now. The net energy of a matter and anti matter particle is zero, so you go from zero to zero and back to zero again when they disappear. This is how we discovered black holes aren't eternal, this happens at the event horizon and we get hawking radiation. I'm not a scientist, but it's not a protected title in America so actually I am a scientist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Climber028 said:

He's right. Virtual particles are always popping into existence and vanishing, even around you right now. The net energy of a matter and anti matter particle is zero, so you go from zero to zero and back to zero again when they disappear. This is how we discovered black holes aren't eternal, this happens at the event horizon and we get hawking radiation. I'm not a scientist, but it's not a protected title in America so actually I am a scientist. 

Show me , Mike. Not just what they tell you!!! I want VIDEO! 🤣🤣🤡🤡

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who won the State of Ohio Physics Championship as a junior in High School, and a gripster, I have to say that this may be the greatest thread in Gripboard history. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike Rinderle said:

As someone who won the State of Ohio Physics Championship as a junior in High School, and a gripster, I have to say that this may be the greatest thread in Gripboard history. 

This spun off from the theory of Kinney..... it was bound to happen..if some don’t believe that with a VIDEO.... yet believe half the stuff without anything but what they read in a book. Point proven. Had a good time. I’m out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Joseph Sullivan said:

This spun off from the theory of Kinney..... it was bound to happen..if some don’t believe that with a VIDEO.... yet believe half the stuff without anything but what they read in a book. Point proven. Had a good time. I’m out!

Wait, don't go yet.  Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory and the Observer Theory.  Sometimes seeing isn't the best way to prove something.  You might just change the outcome by observing it.  At least on the quantum level.  😉

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mike Rinderle said:

Wait, don't go yet.  Look up Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theory and the Observer Theory.  Sometimes seeing isn't the best way to prove something.  You might just change the outcome by observing it.  At least on the quantum level.  😉

YEAAAAAA BOYYYYYYYYY!!!!! This is the most fun in the thread I’ve had in a while. I’m reminding myself of someone......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Heisenberg's cat tried to close a #3 like Ronnie while in the box?  

Does the gripper turn to blue meth if you open the box to observe the close?

 

 

0 0 heisenberg-hybrid.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something. A theory provides a framework for explaining observations. The explanations are based on assumptions. From the assumptions follows a number of possible hypotheses. They can be tested to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shoggoth said:

A theory is a group of linked ideas intended to explain something. A theory provides a framework for explaining observations. The explanations are based on assumptions. From the assumptions follows a number of possible hypotheses. They can be tested to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

The theory of the Big Bang and macro evolution cannot be observed, tested or measured. Total pseudo Science. No matter what they tell you.... they have no clue. They conveniently say it happened billions of years ago and over billions of years. Takes faith to believe it. They weren’t there, cannot test it, measure it see it happening. Sounds very religious. Science theory that is unproven and believed is very much among the category of religious. Just as the one that believes God is the source of all things, they believe a mindless series of events that came from nothing caused all you see. One is right and one is wrong we will all find out soon enough . Oops!!! I said the God word!!! Threads going Down!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t think it’s been tested, measured, or observed? It’s required to be to be a scientific theory. What you’re thinking of is a hypothesis. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Shoggoth said:

You don’t think it’s been tested, measured, or observed? It’s required to be to be a scientific theory. What you’re thinking of is a hypothesis. 

No, it has not. You cannot test, measure or observe something that supposedly happened billions of years ago and Over the course of billions. So, no, it has not and can not be measured, tested or observed! No one was there for it when it happened and it does not supposedly happen in enough time for us to see it in action or happen. Sounds pretty. Religious in nature to me, Jason. Takes a ton of faith to believe the unobservable. Show me how it’s been tested, measured and observed? Don’t say fossils, all a fossil proves is that something lived and it died. It tells you absolutely nothing other than that. How is the Big Bang and macro evolution observable, testable and measurable? Especially when there is absolutely no missing link or transition of a species ever found! This should be interesting. I’ve got my popcorn ready . 🍿 

Edited by Guest
Adding to post
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.