Physics is Wrong

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?

For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.

I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]

He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:

1. You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
   [/quote]
   We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.

2. He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.

Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.

Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:

[/quote]

Ok, I’ll play your game.

“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.

But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]

“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.

Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it. [/quote]

You’re boring. Stop saying I never read it. The statement is stupid. And you keep repeating it.

How many followers do you think he had while he was alive? You used numbers as your argument for influence. So, let’s play your game. How many?

He was a Jew right? Didn’t his own people allow him to go his alleged death on the cross? That’s hardly influential. That such an event occurred would lead one to conclude his influence wasn’t widespread. It’s only axiomatic that if his following and influence were so great, they would not have put him to his death.

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?

For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.

I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]

He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:

1. You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
   [/quote]
   We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.

2. He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.

Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.

Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:

[/quote]

Ok, I’ll play your game.

“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.

But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]

“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.

Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it. [/quote]

You’re boring. Stop saying I never read it. The statement is stupid. And you keep repeating it.
[/quote]
Your saying idiotic things as if they are fact when they are in fact written NO WHERE. It’s fucking obvious you never read it. Even if you merely glaced you would make these gigantic mistakes.

How many followers do you think he had while he was alive? You used numbers as your argument for influence. So, let’s play your game. How many?

It would have to have been in the thousands. Since He fed 5000 at one time in one place and he was swamped every place he went.

He was a Jew right? Didn’t his own people allow him to go his alleged death on the cross? That’s hardly influential. That such an event occurred would lead one to conclude his influence wasn’t widespread. It’s only axiomatic that if his following and influence were so great, they would not have put him to his death.

No, His own people didn’t allow him to go to his death on a cross. They put him there. it was the Pharasies and it was prophesied in the Old Testament. And it had to be so.

If I am so boring than quit fucking bothering me. Because your not boring you’re annoying.

[Cockney_Blue]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Yes, if it turned out that the neutrinos were traveling faster than light that would be pretty huge but it wouldn’t be the end of science, it would just be a new chapter in one important part of science.[/quote]Hey look who it is. One the original involuntary members of my T-Nation prayer list. Long time no argue, but I totally agree with the above.
[/quote]

Good to know. I’ll have to get some satan worshippers praying for me to balance things out

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
“In fact, the researchers themselves are not ready to proclaim a discovery and are asking other physicists to independently try to verify their findings.”[/quote]

Because it goes against all their understanding of physics, not because they are unsure about their process or measurements. They have already done everything they can to try to disprove the discovery.[/quote]

Sorry you are wrong. This is how peer review works. They are saying, we did some experiments. We got some results that make no sense based on our current understanding. Everyone else, please try and replicate this so that we can work out what went wrong.

If other people are able to replicate the results, the scientists will work to adapt the model to account for the new findings.

Yes, if it turned out that the neutrinos were travelling faster than light that would be pretty huge but it wouldn’t be the end of science, it would just be a new chapter in one important part of science.

[/quote]
Actually, Theoretical physics, while interesting, isn’t terribly important to the daily lives of most people.

[pat]

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:<<< Yes, if it turned out that the neutrinos were traveling faster than light that would be pretty huge but it wouldn’t be the end of science, it would just be a new chapter in one important part of science.[/quote]Hey look who it is. One the original involuntary members of my T-Nation prayer list. Long time no argue, but I totally agree with the above.
[/quote]

Good to know. I’ll have to get some satan worshippers praying for me to balance things out[/quote]

You live in Mexico, that’s pretty close to hell isn’t it?

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?

For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.

I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]

He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:

1. You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
   [/quote]
   We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.

2. He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.

Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.

Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:

[/quote]

Ok, I’ll play your game.

“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.

But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]

“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.

Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it. [/quote]

You’re boring. Stop saying I never read it. The statement is stupid. And you keep repeating it.
[/quote]
Your saying idiotic things as if they are fact when they are in fact written NO WHERE. It’s fucking obvious you never read it. Even if you merely glaced you would make these gigantic mistakes.

How many followers do you think he had while he was alive? You used numbers as your argument for influence. So, let’s play your game. How many?

It would have to have been in the thousands. Since He fed 5000 at one time in one place and he was swamped every place he went.

He was a Jew right? Didn’t his own people allow him to go his alleged death on the cross? That’s hardly influential. That such an event occurred would lead one to conclude his influence wasn’t widespread. It’s only axiomatic that if his following and influence were so great, they would not have put him to his death.

No, His own people didn’t allow him to go to his death on a cross. They put him there. it was the Pharasies and it was prophesied in the Old Testament. And it had to be so.

If I am so boring than quit fucking bothering me. Because your not boring you’re annoying.[/quote]

Pat, fuck yourself and your chop and reply PWI shuffle, which is nothing more than an attempt to stifle any meaningful replies. You’re no less annoying, and last I checked you haven’t won a single popularity contest. Glass houses sir. There happens to be more than one point of view, other than yours, and other than the interpretation of the bible that you hold true. And if you’re so bothered, stop fucking replying. But you can’t do that - you want the last word, like every other stubborn bore since the beginning of time.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?

For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.

I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]

He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:

1. You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
   [/quote]
   We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.

2. He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.

Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.

Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:

[/quote]

Ok, I’ll play your game.

“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.

But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]

“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.

Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it. [/quote]

You’re boring. Stop saying I never read it. The statement is stupid. And you keep repeating it.
[/quote]
Your saying idiotic things as if they are fact when they are in fact written NO WHERE. It’s fucking obvious you never read it. Even if you merely glaced you would make these gigantic mistakes.

How many followers do you think he had while he was alive? You used numbers as your argument for influence. So, let’s play your game. How many?

It would have to have been in the thousands. Since He fed 5000 at one time in one place and he was swamped every place he went.

He was a Jew right? Didn’t his own people allow him to go his alleged death on the cross? That’s hardly influential. That such an event occurred would lead one to conclude his influence wasn’t widespread. It’s only axiomatic that if his following and influence were so great, they would not have put him to his death.

No, His own people didn’t allow him to go to his death on a cross. They put him there. it was the Pharasies and it was prophesied in the Old Testament. And it had to be so.

If I am so boring than quit fucking bothering me. Because your not boring you’re annoying.[/quote]

Oh, and let me reply to the only part of your post with substance. You just said he influenced in “the thousands”. He allegedly fed 5000 at one time. Was that to be taken literally? Or was that more of them bible “stories”? I’m just checking. But I’ll allow your 5000, and I’ll assume we can add another few thousand (being very generous) since he was “swamped” wherever he went. What are we up to? 10,000?

Is it your position that no other figure in history directly influenced more than 10,000 people?

[pat]

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
What the hell are you talking about Islam? Where was that introduced? And what did I say about Islam? Again making assumptions with zero facts to back it up? Where did I say I reject Islam?

For the record, Islam would not exist if Christianity didn’t, since it was heavily influence by Christianity in the beginning.

I am not sure what you mean by ‘rigorous logic’ any how? I wasn’t making a deductive logical argument. We’re having a discussion.

I swear I think you aren’t really interested in real discussion or information, you just like to start fights any how and any way possible.
And if Sloth’s accusation that you tried to arrange to beat someone up because they insulted you on the internet is even remotely true, I find that extremely disturbing. Problem is, I know sloth to be of good character and I have never know him to make stuff up willy-nilly.[/quote]

He has a valid point, and whether you can’t see it or are deliberately avoiding it remains to be seen. Simply put:

1. You used the ‘appeal to numbers’ fallacy. An example of this is most of the world thinking the earth was flat. Should we continue to entertain such a theory today since the majority once believed in it?
   [/quote]
   We were discuss influence, not validity. Numbers matter in influence, but not in validity. The argument or conversation was about the impact Jesus, Christianity and it’s holy book has had in history, not the validity of what it says or His divinity.If you want to get all nit picky than changing the topic in mid-conversation is a strawman. Try to keep up. If you had read what was leading up to this you would have found the error was not mine.

2. He pointed out that Islam and the belief in Muhammad’s ability to converse with God is backed up by numbers - the same thing you fell back on. By your logic, we should all consider the words of an illiterate desert man as something to be taken as gospel. No thanks.

Islam has had great influence as well, just not as big as Christianity. But with out Christianity and it’s Holy book there would be no Islam either. And correctly, if there were no Judaism, there would be neither faiths.

Just so we don’t get all serious like in this thread, have some country music:

[/quote]

Ok, I’ll play your game.

“He” was not very directly influential at all. His followers, specifically those that started the Church, were far more “influential” than he in terms of “numbers”. Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries. I would not call that “influential”. In fact, “he” did not write down a single word. However, all those things you listed prior, like “sundays” and the “calendar”, and my rebuttal to those that you ignore, we inventions of THE CHURCH, not Jesus. I’d concede the Church was far more influential if that was your position, but it was not.

But really, why did you put forth the “influential” argument to begin with if you were not at least trying to imply “validity”. Again, you’re treading upon being disingenuous. Tell us the point, within the context of this thread, of raising Jesus’ “influence”?? [/quote]

“Jesus did not even have his own family convinced, and had few followers among his contemporaries.” ~ LOL!!!
What resource did you use to draw this conclusion? As far as I know, the only resource that speaks to it with any detail is the Bible, according to it he made quite a slash. Also, the 1rst century historian Josephus was aware of Jesus and knew he was a person of great influence.
Then there are no followers without Jesus, there is no church without Jesus.

Second, no I cannot prove the ‘validity’ of Jesus or the Bible, but your calling bullshit on a book you never read. That is disingenuous. But you’ve made up your mind and I have no intention of trying to change it. [/quote]

You’re boring. Stop saying I never read it. The statement is stupid. And you keep repeating it.
[/quote]
Your saying idiotic things as if they are fact when they are in fact written NO WHERE. It’s fucking obvious you never read it. Even if you merely glaced you would make these gigantic mistakes.

How many followers do you think he had while he was alive? You used numbers as your argument for influence. So, let’s play your game. How many?

It would have to have been in the thousands. Since He fed 5000 at one time in one place and he was swamped every place he went.

He was a Jew right? Didn’t his own people allow him to go his alleged death on the cross? That’s hardly influential. That such an event occurred would lead one to conclude his influence wasn’t widespread. It’s only axiomatic that if his following and influence were so great, they would not have put him to his death.

No, His own people didn’t allow him to go to his death on a cross. They put him there. it was the Pharasies and it was prophesied in the Old Testament. And it had to be so.

If I am so boring than quit fucking bothering me. Because your not boring you’re annoying.[/quote]

Oh, and let me reply to the only part of your post with substance. You just said he influenced in “the thousands”. He allegedly fed 5000 at one time. Was that to be taken literally? Or was that more of them bible “stories”? I’m just checking. But I’ll allow your 5000, and I’ll assume we can add another few thousand (being very generous) since he was “swamped” wherever he went. What are we up to? 10,000?

Is it your position that no other figure in history directly influenced more than 10,000 people? [/quote]

You may in fact be to dumb to hold this conversation with. Look at history. You are wasting my time, this conversation is over.

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]pat wrote:

You may in fact be to dumb to hold this conversation with. Look at history. You are wasting my time, this conversation is over.
[/quote]

Sorry, but in addition to being stubborn, you are the gate keeper of fallacious arguments. I don’t care how many web resources about the CA you read, or how much faith you have, you (like many) argue fallaciously. You close with an ad hominem; what else is new? And, the entire discussion centers around you trying to shift the Burden of Proof, when YOU are the one that made the statement.

Let’s do this slow, since there probably isn’t a direct resource you can plagiarize to make your “argument”. You stated that Jesus was the most influential person in history (ignoring for a moment the debates about his historicity). When I attempted to clarify and determine if you were making the statement that he was DIRECTLY influential, you bunted (as usual) with attacks and fallacious arguments.

When I fielded your pathetic bunt anyway by stating that the CHURCH was more influential, and that I was inclined to agree with the Church’s influence, you have yet to clarify or reply with substance, beyond some biblical parable about Jesus feeding 5000 people (I again ask you, was that a “literal” story) and being “swamped wherever he went”.

You made a statement that Jesus was the most influential person ever. It’s your Burden of Proof to support the statement. Not mine to rebut it. Thus far, you have failed miserably. You are either dull (possible) or trying to lay your trap to argue my rebuttal of anyone I might offer as being more “influential”, as opposed to supporting your premise.

First, define “influence”.

Tell us whether that “influence” is direct or otherwise.

If it’s not direct, it’s axiomatic that the influence you attach to Jesus belongs in fact to the Church. I have no argument with the latter conclusion.

[Cortes]

Just adding a bit of perspective:

Top 10 People Who Became Famous after Death

[TheBodyGuard]

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Just adding a bit of perspective:

Top 10 People Who Became Famous after Death

:)[/quote]

And yet another perspective :

The 100

His invitation to provide a rebuttal was nothing more than a veiled invitation to a brawl to fight over a “beauty contest”.

[pat]

I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have. Particularly, pertaining to black holes. So current thinking is that it’s the gravity of the black hole that draws shit into it, but what if it’s just speed? It may explain the gravitational pull of the black hole, why it’s black and it’s gravity and why they expire eventually.

So let’s examine, around the black hole you have the event horizon. This is the point where material nearing the black hole, is sped up to rotate at or near the speed of light. As the material speeds up, it naturally rips anything thing atomic apart creating the brilliant displays associated with the event horizon. But thinking of a black hole as no more than a cosmic tornado, what if this now sub atomic material doesn’t sucking into a ball of extremely dense material, but just keeps accelerating past the speed of light, perhaps way past? That would explain why it cannot be seen and why it “crushes” light. Anything going faster than the speed of light would not be seen. The faster it goes the stronger it’s gravitational pull. It could circulate on an axis the size of a pin, and the reason for the expiration may be plain and simple friction, not hawking radiation or matter vs. anti matter.

This really could revolutionize what we know about the universe.

What it will do to time is still unknown. Speed of light may not be time=0, but the only to get time=0 is a lack of movement. Anything that moves has a temporal component. It doesn’t make sense that anything traveling faster than the SOL arrives sooner than it was sent, the evidence doesn’t indicate that.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have. Particularly, pertaining to black holes. So current thinking is that it’s the gravity of the black hole that draws shit into it, but what if it’s just speed? It may explain the gravitational pull of the black hole, why it’s black and it’s gravity and why they expire eventually.

So let’s examine, around the black hole you have the event horizon. This is the point where material nearing the black hole, is sped up to rotate at or near the speed of light. As the material speeds up, it naturally rips anything thing atomic apart creating the brilliant displays associated with the event horizon. But thinking of a black hole as no more than a cosmic tornado, what if this now sub atomic material doesn’t sucking into a ball of extremely dense material, but just keeps accelerating past the speed of light, perhaps way past? That would explain why it cannot be seen and why it “crushes” light. Anything going faster than the speed of light would not be seen. The faster it goes the stronger it’s gravitational pull. It could circulate on an axis the size of a pin, and the reason for the expiration may be plain and simple friction, not hawking radiation or matter vs. anti matter.

This really could revolutionize what we know about the universe.

What it will do to time is still unknown. Speed of light may not be time=0, but the only to get time=0 is a lack of movement. Anything that moves has a temporal component. It doesn’t make sense that anything traveling faster than the SOL arrives sooner than it was sent, the evidence doesn’t indicate that.[/quote]

The event horizon actually has nothing to do with speed. It is just a boundary of no return. Nothing super special happens there, other than nothing inside it being observable to something outside it.

We also need to remember than all the black hole stuff is EXTREMELY theoretical. The mere existence of them is still questionable, much less their behavior.

Although, that brings up one of my favorite words, spaghettification.

[pat]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have. Particularly, pertaining to black holes. So current thinking is that it’s the gravity of the black hole that draws shit into it, but what if it’s just speed? It may explain the gravitational pull of the black hole, why it’s black and it’s gravity and why they expire eventually.

So let’s examine, around the black hole you have the event horizon. This is the point where material nearing the black hole, is sped up to rotate at or near the speed of light. As the material speeds up, it naturally rips anything thing atomic apart creating the brilliant displays associated with the event horizon. But thinking of a black hole as no more than a cosmic tornado, what if this now sub atomic material doesn’t sucking into a ball of extremely dense material, but just keeps accelerating past the speed of light, perhaps way past? That would explain why it cannot be seen and why it “crushes” light. Anything going faster than the speed of light would not be seen. The faster it goes the stronger it’s gravitational pull. It could circulate on an axis the size of a pin, and the reason for the expiration may be plain and simple friction, not hawking radiation or matter vs. anti matter.

This really could revolutionize what we know about the universe.

What it will do to time is still unknown. Speed of light may not be time=0, but the only to get time=0 is a lack of movement. Anything that moves has a temporal component. It doesn’t make sense that anything traveling faster than the SOL arrives sooner than it was sent, the evidence doesn’t indicate that.[/quote]

The event horizon actually has nothing to do with speed. It is just a boundary of no return. Nothing super special happens there, other than nothing inside it being observable to something outside it.

We also need to remember than all the black hole stuff is EXTREMELY theoretical. The mere existence of them is still questionable, much less their behavior.

Although, that brings up one of my favorite words, spaghettification.[/quote]

It has everything to do with speed, speed is the reason it’s the point of no return. The point of no return is escape velocity, a.k.a. speed of light.
Yes, it’s theoretical, of course. But it’s damn interesting. This little discovery, may rework a lot of things. Perhaps gravity isn’t a thing at all, but just a result of motion.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have. Particularly, pertaining to black holes. So current thinking is that it’s the gravity of the black hole that draws shit into it, but what if it’s just speed? It may explain the gravitational pull of the black hole, why it’s black and it’s gravity and why they expire eventually.

So let’s examine, around the black hole you have the event horizon. This is the point where material nearing the black hole, is sped up to rotate at or near the speed of light. As the material speeds up, it naturally rips anything thing atomic apart creating the brilliant displays associated with the event horizon. But thinking of a black hole as no more than a cosmic tornado, what if this now sub atomic material doesn’t sucking into a ball of extremely dense material, but just keeps accelerating past the speed of light, perhaps way past? That would explain why it cannot be seen and why it “crushes” light. Anything going faster than the speed of light would not be seen. The faster it goes the stronger it’s gravitational pull. It could circulate on an axis the size of a pin, and the reason for the expiration may be plain and simple friction, not hawking radiation or matter vs. anti matter.

This really could revolutionize what we know about the universe.

What it will do to time is still unknown. Speed of light may not be time=0, but the only to get time=0 is a lack of movement. Anything that moves has a temporal component. It doesn’t make sense that anything traveling faster than the SOL arrives sooner than it was sent, the evidence doesn’t indicate that.[/quote]

The event horizon actually has nothing to do with speed. It is just a boundary of no return. Nothing super special happens there, other than nothing inside it being observable to something outside it.

We also need to remember than all the black hole stuff is EXTREMELY theoretical. The mere existence of them is still questionable, much less their behavior.

Although, that brings up one of my favorite words, spaghettification.[/quote]

It has everything to do with speed, speed is the reason it’s the point of no return. The point of no return is escape velocity, a.k.a. speed of light.
Yes, it’s theoretical, of course. But it’s damn interesting. This little discovery, may rework a lot of things. Perhaps gravity isn’t a thing at all, but just a result of motion.[/quote]

It is a point where there is no possible escape velocity, but it doesn’t mean things have to be going really fast. If I remember correctly, given a large enough black hole, you could actually survive within the even horizon.

[Makavali]

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have.[/quote]

Sorry, but I had to

[pat]

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have.[/quote]

Sorry, but I had to[/quote]

Yeah I know, and I don’t blame you. You should find comfort that if I did choose the former it would be with you in mind

[Makavali]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
I needed to jot this down before I forgot it all. So I woke up at 1:30 am last night and could not go back to sleep, instead of spanking my monkey, I thought about physics and the implications this discovery could have.[/quote]

Sorry, but I had to[/quote]

Yeah I know, and I don’t blame you. You should find comfort that if I did choose the former it would be with you in mind ;)[/quote]

Time for a cold shower and several hours of crying.

[siouxperman]

http://dvice.com/archives/2011/10/speedy-neutrino.php

An interesting explanation that disproves neutrinos being FTL on the basis of relativity itself.

[borrek]

[quote]pat wrote:
So let’s examine, around the black hole you have the event horizon. This is the point where material nearing the black hole, is sped up to rotate at or near the speed of light. As the material speeds up, it naturally rips anything thing atomic apart creating the brilliant displays associated with the event horizon. But thinking of a black hole as no more than a cosmic tornado, what if this now sub atomic material doesn’t sucking into a ball of extremely dense material, but just keeps accelerating past the speed of light, perhaps way past? That would explain why it cannot be seen and why it “crushes” light. Anything going faster than the speed of light would not be seen. The faster it goes the stronger it’s gravitational pull. It could circulate on an axis the size of a pin, and the reason for the expiration may be plain and simple friction, not hawking radiation or matter vs. anti matter.
[/quote]

I would really recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Holes-Time-Warps-Commonwealth/dp/0393312763

In a way, we know that rotating atomic particles don’t ever speed up past the speed of light because of the concept of degenerate matter. Basically as a star’s gravity increases, the gases in the interior get further and further compressed, and as that gas gets compressed its electrons have to spin faster and faster to orbit the nucleus. Eventually, as the density of the gas gets high enough, the speed of the electron nears the speed of light. This gives rise to a mass limit of stars of a given density range. For example, a white dwarf star cannot be heavier than 1.44 solar masses.

If the particles had the ability to break the speed limit, we wouldn’t “see” them per se, but we would see white dwarf stars that are heavier than 1.44 solar masses.