I did not make clear that I was homeschooled. My parents had that education, and I sat under it my entire life. My dad was a pastor and taught me hermeneutics and theology and even Greek since I was very little. He was also a professor of Hebrew and of Archeology, and I, being his son, received his knowledge as my education.
I am 17. I have not gone to college yet. My credentials are that I study, and have been taught by some of the foremost intellectuals in my state. But they do not matter, as you said. Rather, my argument does.
Now it seems the biggest point of conflict is over how I treated infinity. I will fix that, define it better, and reform my second argument to make it clearer.
Would you explain to me how my reasoning left that out? Iâm no expert on the Lorentz factor, but it appears to be exactly what I was arguing against, and my argument there does deal with thatâŚ
I need to correct you because you have all of your facts incorrect.
Newton had nothing to do with thermodynamics. In fact, those laws were revealed by Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson in 1860.
Secondly, the first law of thermodynamics refer to a closed system. When you invent this âgod created the universeâ, it is thus not a closed system. There is an external agent messing with the universe.
My bad. I was mixing up the three laws of motion, which are Newtonâs, with the three laws of thermodynamics.
Which brings into question the level of your education. As soon as you mentioned Newton, a huge alarm bell went off in my brain.
Here is a test to discern the depth of your understanding.
Newton is famous for the tale of him watching an apple fall. But almost a hundred years previous Galileo had worked out gravity, even itâs rate of acceleration. So Newton was not the first to âdiscover gravityâ.
So for this apple and Newton story, exactly what did he discover? How was it ground-breaking?
You are an asshole.
I donât know the answer to that specific question. I know he was the father of calculus, and I read his Principia, and wrote on light and motion and gravity and lots of things.
Ergo I am completely uneducated and I really have no idea who Newton was or what he did and my argument is entirely false and you win.
Happy?
Why the hell would you do that, man?
Stick to the fucking argument I wrote, which has nothing to do with folk tales that arose about Newton.
At that time, the assumption was that the earth and heavens operated under different laws. But Newton made the connection, that the effect of gravity on the earth was the very same gravity that influenced the orbit of the Moon.
1 Like
Was that necessary? Have I used such language against you?
Well, up to now I have tried be polite. But now, I will treat you with the same level of respect you have displayed to me.
But I will not use such nasty words, I will not allow myself to be dragged down to your level of brutish rudeness and foul behavior.
2 Likes
Ah. That explains why you seem to have a lot of surface knowledge but little understanding.
Iâm not being unkind. For 17 youâre doing remarkably well here.
If you stay with an open mind you have an opportunity to learn a lot. I do, and Iâm 73. Youâve reminded me not to be so quick at jumping to conclusions. 
1 Like
You seem like the only sane person here! I would like to have my argument objectively picked at so that I can fine-tune it. This is certainly not the place for that. I was hoping for some stimulating and insightful critiques⌠but alas, this is the internet as much as anything.
WTF??? You are objectifying time. Time is not a thing. The measurement of time is a mental construct. Time itself is the observable change in constructs from the past to the present and into the future. Most basically, if a system is unchanging, it is timeless. (Without Time)
Seconds, minutes, hours, years, light years, all of these are standardized and made up constructs by those of us measuring change, from past to future, in the universe around us.
There is NO âTime itself.â It is not a thing. Time dilation is real from all we currently know. Defeat this idea and you will earn yourself a Nobel prize. The closer the clock is to the source of gravitation, the **slower time will pass. ** Time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time as measured by two clocks due to a relative velocity between them or to a difference in gravitational potential between their locations. (Moving from the past into the future; one clock actually runs faster and the other slower,) Objective, verifiable, and repeatable.
Time isnât different for anyone in either position. Assuming we are measuring it the same way. In both positions X minutes have passes. It is when we compare the two positions that we discover the difference.
This is all clearly explained in Einsteinâs theory.
1 Like
aRashkolikov,
You wrote:
I donât believe in the fourth dimension as having a reality in itself.
Nor do I believe in a literal first, second, or third dimension. those arenât real self-existing things, they are tools we use to describe things mathematically.
The units of measure for these things may be human conventions, but rest assured, the dimensions exist. If they donât, what in the world is left???
1 Like
An argument is presented as a series of propositions that you assemble to arrive at a conclusion.
For example, I begin with âŚ
- A=1
- B=2
- C=3
Therefore A+B+C=6
If any of the A,B, or C is not valid, then the conclusion (6) cannot be supported.
If one is inclined to present a conclusion, then they must make sure that every one of the propositions are correct and not just assumed.
David Killens,
Thanks for the links to the YouTube videos. Iâll watch those first chance I get. (Iâll be interested in why the expansion of the âbubbleâ doesnât constitute motion covered by Einsteinian Physics law on matter at light speed.)
You are very welcome.
We are not traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing within this known universe is. We are just inside a huge bubble that is expanding faster than light. If that makes any sense.
Did you know that if all of the dust floating around between the stars was removed, our galactic center would shine brighter than the moon?
Gee, itâs a long time since anyone called me sane.
That is actually quite common here. Itâs a matter of attitude . Presenting your ideas as simply that rather than as truths would be a good start . You will probably receive insightful critiques if you concede the possibility of error.
Be aware that any claim presented without supporting empirical evidence will almost certainly be called out.
Perhaps learn to discern the difference between a claim and an argument.
I also suggest learning some of the more common logical fallacies. This will help you fine tune your arguments and to pick out logical flaws in the arguments of others.
The link below gives an outline of 12 logical fallacies. Just be aware of the click bait.
The Wiki entry is quite good Also worth a glance.
It does no such thing. The Lorentz factor is determined by the velocity difference; and has nothing to do with the gravity effect you have been discussing.
Several posters have tried to explain that to you already, but it doesnât seem to be helpingâŚ
1 Like
Hilarious, please demonstrate something beyond pure unevidenced assumption, or an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, that a cause requires a deity or anything supernatural?
Then you can evidence why you think itâs the deity youâve chosen, rather than any of the other thousands of deities humans have imagined are real.
As for deduction and logic, you used several known logical fallacies in your first cause argument, as this argument always does. Yet keep insisting itâs rational? You also misrepresented atheism as a claim with A or not A argument. A precursor to using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, theists use to reverse the burden of truth.
You also used an argument from incredulity fallacy, a false dichotomy fallacy, and a begging the question fallacy.
Logical deduction cannot contain known logical fallacies, by definition.
1 Like
Wtf?
I would take umbrage at that, but since youâre only 17, and were home schooled by a pastor, Iâll let it go.
1 Like
You also wish you could reason god into existenceâŚ
OR you wish to demonstrate (unsuccessfully) that belief in god or âfaithâ is rational (?) It is irrational.
Ahhh 
not all wishes come trueâŚ
Just accept you have a low standard for evidence to support your reason for a god belief and faith is an irrational tool.
BTW
