Jump to content

Who can close a #3 Ronnie Coleman style?


Alawadhi

Recommended Posts

So you’re restricting the use of available evidence? Are telescopes allowed?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours 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.

I am a scientist and I approve this post😉

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shoggoth said:

So you’re restricting the use of available evidence? Are telescopes allowed?

You mean available thoughts of how they think it may have happened? Not proof. Slice it and call it what you want, Jason!  They know jack about how we got here and what happened before we did. Scientists are not all knowing.  Just because they have a title and write things in a book, does not make them right.... and they have NO WAY of proving it. That burns some people up, I know, but it is what it is. Some things will never be known. Makes them feel extra special thinking they do, though. Tell me, how does a telescope tell us how nothing exploded into something? And where that nothing  came from that turned into EVERYTHING? Ahhhh the mysteries of the universe ! Gotta love it!  🍿 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, David_wigren said:

The fact that something falls is explained by the theory of gravity. So, it’s still just a theory.

Here we go again. Now to a science topic. All because of Ronnie Coleman haha Poor Ronnie has nothing to do with this. So David, no sir! It's the law of Gravity. Not theory of gravity. Newton's law of universal gravitation.

13 hours ago, Mike Rinderle said:

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

I couldn't resist.  😈

Ice and gas is wet too. But all is H2O. The known matters to most people are Solid, Liquid, and Gas. That was a theory. They've found out more now. Things change. When I was young in school they taught us Solid, Liquid, Gas and Plasma. Now there are Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma, Degenerate Matter, Quark-Gloun Plasma and Bose-Einstein condensates. There can be more which I forgot to say. of course, without a doubt, others will also be found in the future.

12 hours ago, David_wigren said:

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.

They might. But the LHC is the world largest machine which produced things from nothing as per their claim. So you should have something to create the nothing. But it's way small in size. Like particle size.

11 hours 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.

100% truth. Explanation doesn't mean it's a fact. It can be challenged and it should to be a fact. 

Ronnie Coleman true set attempt, any takers?.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of my staff work on projects related to the origin of the solar system (collaborating with the Fireball Network at Curtin University). One way of doing it is by looking at meteorites as they preserve all sorts of things and data from a time shortly after the birth of our solar system. We have a whole network of digital cameras on the Nullarbor Plain tracking incoming meteors (and then we go out and collect them, provided it was not cloudy, lol). Almost all meteorites date back from a narrow time interval about 4.56 billion years ago. We also have meteorites that came all the way from Mars (with microscopic gas inclusions with a signature matching the atmosphere on Mars). 

Edited by Mikael Siversson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

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

I'm pretty sure, by the way I feel this morning, I must have been around for it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Shoggoth said:

So you’re restricting the use of available evidence? Are telescopes allowed?

You mean available thoughts of how they think it may have happened? Not proof. Slice it and call it what you want, Jason!  They know jack about how we got here and what happened before we did. Scientists are not all knowing.  Just because they have a title and write things in a book, does not make them right.... and they have NO WAY of proving it. That burns some people up, I know, but it is what it is. Some things will never be known. Makes them feel extra special thinking they do, though. Tell me, how does a telescope tell us how nothing exploded into something? And where that nothing  came from that turned into EVERYTHING? Ahhhh the mysteries of the universe ! Gotta love it!  🍿 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

You mean available thoughts of how they think it may have happened? Not proof. Slice it and call it what you want, Jason!  They know jack about how we got here and what happened before we did. Scientists are not all knowing.  Just because they have a title and write things in a book, does not make them right.... and they have NO WAY of proving it. That burns some people up, I know, but it is what it is. Some things will never be known. Makes them feel extra special thinking they do, though. Tell me, how does a telescope tell us how nothing exploded into something? And where that nothing  came from that turned into EVERYTHING? Ahhhh the mysteries of the universe ! Gotta love it!  🍿 

Of course Joseph. Not anyone who rents an apartment, or a villa and do experiments can call his or her hypothesis a fact. Not even universities can do that. Only when the idea (explained and "proved") was challenged by many well known and not well known universities, research facilities, research centers, rented villa's, garage and apartments of so called scientist, et cetera and couldn't disprove the theory then it can be a fact or a law. For example, The moon that I see in Dubai is the SAME moon you see in New York.  That is a fact. All the world can go and challenge me and I would still win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Alawadhi said:

Of course Joseph. Not anyone who rents an apartment, or a villa and do experiments can call his or her hypothesis a fact. Not even universities can do that. Only when the idea (explained and "proved") was challenged by many well known and not well known universities, research facilities, research centers, rented villa's, garage and apartments of so called scientist, et cetera and couldn't disprove the theory then it can be a fact or a law. For example, The moon that I see in Dubai is the SAME moon you see in New York.  That is a fact. All the world can go and challenge me and I would still win.

Totally! To say there’s no truth or fact is a laugh. Truth is not relative! I can say I am Oprah Winfrey!! Is it true? nope!!! No matter how much I believe it... I am not... There is an absolute truth. In this current, modern  world, people are awfully delusional that “my truth” or my “version” is the truth or that the truth is not absolute...... you are so right Bader!  

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mikael Siversson said:

Some of my staff work on projects related to the origin of the solar system (collaborating with the Fireball Network at Curtin University). One way of doing it is by looking at meteorites as they preserve all sorts of things and data from a time shortly after the birth of our solar system. We have a whole network of digital cameras on the Nullarbor Plain tracking incoming meteors (and then we go out and collect them, provided it was not cloudy, lol). Almost all meteorites date back from a narrow time interval about 4.56 billion years ago. We also have meteorites that came all the way from Mars (with microscopic gas inclusions with a signature matching the atmosphere on Mars). 

Oh yea? 4.5 billion years ago? They know this how? They weren’t there! Please don’t say carbon dating!!!  That is NOT ACCURATE!!  They have found things that carbon on one part of the fossil says it’s this amount of years and another part says something totally different and not for even close to the other !!!   They have NO WAY of truly knowing that!!! This is fun to watch people try and explain the unexplainable... with all their fancy book learnings and technology! 🤡🤡🤡

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

I'm pretty sure, by the way I feel this morning, I must have been around for it.  

Rindo, you are the best, man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Rindo, you are the best, man!

It's about time somone realized it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Chez said:

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

It evolved and overcame.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Chez said:

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

I’m having a lot of fun with this one, Chez!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Oh yea? 4.5 billion years ago? They know this how? They weren’t there! Please don’t say carbon dating!!!  That is NOT ACCURATE!!  They have found things that carbon on one part of the fossil says it’s this amount of years and another part says something totally different and not for even close to the other !!!   They have NO WAY of truly knowing that!!! This is fun to watch people try and explain the unexplainable... with all their fancy book learnings and technology! 🤡🤡🤡

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

What if your diet consists of beer, baked beans, nachos, and double meat pizza?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

What if your diet consists of beer, baked beans, nachos, and double meat pizza?

Throw some corn in there and you’ll confuse the hell out of future scientists since wheat is a C3 plant and corn is a C4 plant (or the other way around, I can’t remember and I don’t care enough to google 😂)

Edited by David_wigren
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

Yea, RC Dating is fairly reliable out to a few million years if you make sure you account for any variables.  There are some conditions that can throw the results off, like was it ever in or near a fire, has it been handled a lot in non-sterile conditions, above ground nuclear testing added a large amount of C14 into the atmosphere making items seem artificially young, and burning fossil fuels depletes C14 from the atmosphere making things seem artificially older.

But, like David said, there are other elemental tests that can be run to sanity check the C14 data and give you a reasonable confidence in a loose date range.  That uncertainty range grows the older something is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours 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. 

This stuff is real fascinating. Of course, matter and antimatter of quarks and leptons are in fact poping in and out of existence all the time, everywhere. Even at the edge of the event horizon at black holes, like you mentioned. This isn’t going to impress someone like Joe S. Joe needs to see dirt magically appear in a video. But it would be interesting to know if it is actually something that can be controlled. Because then you should actually be able to produce dirt from nothing. Dirt is obviously just made up of different molecules, which are made from atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and leptons. I wonder if it’s even possible for anything bigger than that to pop into existence. This is just pure speculation. I hardly know anything about this stuff. But since it’s all randomly driven. What if, at a random point and time, if you wait long enough, there is a threshold that gets reached, at which it cascades out of control and just violently vomit out an incredible amounts of particulate matter and antimatter, enough to feed a whole new universe. Maybe this is what happened during the big bang? Maybe it has happened an infinite number of times, and will happen an infinite numbef of times again. I mean, if it can happen on a small scale, why couldn’t it happen on a large scale? Unless of course there is some type of natural barrier to it. Who knows, this is just pure speculative guess work for the fun of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, climber511 said:

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

Some more than others.  😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, climber511 said:

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

I keyboard warrior - therefore I exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I keyboard warrior - therefore I exist.

But are you David?

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.