Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Wed, 2012-05-09 08:22
#1
Maysie
Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory
Wed, 2012-05-09 08:23
#2
Maysie
Hee hee.
"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity-which is taught to our children as a law-is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
....
"What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"
Full ground-breaking story here.
Thanks to former babbler Cueball for posting this on another site.
Wed, 2012-05-09 08:34
#3
Which site would this be? I'd like to catch up Cueball. Anyways, yeah...they probably tested their theory by being repeatedly dropped on their heads.
Wed, 2012-05-09 08:45
#4
Tks for the pm.
Wed, 2012-05-09 09:33
#5
Ground-breaking story.... I like that.
Wed, 2012-05-09 09:37
#6
Yep. Some down to Earth reasoning going on there.
Wed, 2012-05-09 13:17
#7
From the article:
...The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force...
The impending discovery of the Higgs boson, or "God particle", will help answer the age old question: "what the heck is mass anyway?"
Wed, 2012-05-09 13:23
#8
It won't just be for Catholics anymore.
Wed, 2012-07-04 13:17
#9
I guess scientists have made a preliminary announcement earlier today, seen here, that they've discovered the Higgs Boson. To temper the news, this is more a "there's nothing else it can be" kind of cautious announcement. In any event, from another website:
Q: Why is it important?A: The origin of mass (meaning the resistance of an object to being moved) has been fiercely debated for decades. Finding the Higgs boson would vindicate the so-called Standard Model of physics, a theory that developed in the early 1970s, which says the Universe is made from 12 particles that provide the building blocks for all matter.
And that's about as far down as we can physically drill right now. In turn, string theories are trying to take it one step further by asking, okay, now what are the constituents of those building blocks, including the actual fabric of space itself?
Wed, 2012-07-04 13:21
#10
alan smithee
I saw the name of this thread and thought it was a joke.
When will people finally realize that these religious nutters are just that--nutters *face palm*
Wed, 2012-07-04 14:20
#11
Boom Boom
"...said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University."
Wed, 2012-07-04 15:49
#12
Yes, I guess thinking in metaphoric terms isn't some people's cup of tea.
Wed, 2012-07-04 17:04
#13
Wed, 2012-07-04 17:47
#14
alan smithee
Thu, 2012-07-05 11:47
#15
The impending discovery of the Higgs boson, or "God particle", will help answer the age old question: "what the heck is mass anyway?"
I wish people would stop parroting the religious bent of the msm when referring to the Higgs Boson as a "God particle". Has nothing to with a god. Just science. Not picking on you BTW, I just am sick of every single reference I see to Higgs Boson followed by the two words "God particle".
Thu, 2012-07-05 14:03
#16
World-famous physicist Stephen Hawking is $100 poorer following the apparent discovery of the Higgs boson particle that so elated scientists this week.
Hawking wagered 10 years ago at a conference in South Korea that such a theoretical particle - a basic "building block" of the universe described by some as the "God particle" - would never be found. He backed up his claim with a $100 wager against another scientist, Gordon Kane, who now heads the Michigan Center for Theoretical Physics.
But the British physicist conceded he bet wrong on Wednesday, when scientists in Geneva announced they had almost certainly hunted down the elusive subatomic particle.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/07/05/stephen-hawking-bet.html
Thu, 2012-07-05 14:18
#17
The impending discovery of the Higgs boson, or "God particle", will help answer the age old question: "what the heck is mass anyway?"
I wish people would stop parroting the religious bent of the msm when referring to the Higgs Boson as a "God particle". Has nothing to with a god. Just science. Not picking on you BTW, I just am sick of every single reference I see to Higgs Boson followed by the two words "God particle".
If I can't see God or his particle, then it doesn't matter. We are bigger than God and Higgs-Boson!
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very fright'ning me.
(Galileo.) Galileo. (Galileo.) Galileo, Galileo figaro magnifico
Thu, 2012-07-05 14:36
#18
If I can't see God or his particle, then it doesn't matter. We are bigger than God and Higgs-Boson!
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche, Scaramouche, will you do the Fandango.
Thunderbolt and lightning, very, very fright'ning me.
(Galileo.) Galileo. (Galileo.) Galileo, Galileo figaro magnifico
Not sure about the Queen reference, took me a bit for it to register, and also confused about the first two sentences. So yeah, generally not sure.
Thu, 2012-07-05 15:45
#19
I'm saying this CERN research is bigger than all of you, me, Scaramouche, and God combined. And they will surely do the Fandango when an official announcement is made.
Thu, 2012-07-05 15:50
#20
Bah humbug, you believe in God, admit it, Fidel.
Thu, 2012-07-05 15:58
#21
Maysie
I saw the name of this thread and thought it was a joke.
When will people finally realize that these religious nutters are just that--nutters *face palm*
Dude, it is a joke. It's an "Onion" article.
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:02
#22
Maysie
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:04
#23
alan smithee
I saw the name of this thread and thought it was a joke.
When will people finally realize that these religious nutters are just that--nutters *face palm*
Dude, it is a joke. It's an "Onion" article.
Sorry..I didn't realize it was an Onion article..I thought it was a joke.
But my comment about religious nutters stands. 
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:08
#24
Nevertheless, onion or no, it's a good opportunity to come out on one side or another.
So what say ye, art thou for thine god, or art thou aginst.
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:11
#25
Maysie
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:17
#26
Boom Boom
Maysie's on a roll today!
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:20
#27
I wish people would stop parroting the religious bent of the msm when referring to the Higgs Boson as a "God particle".
lol, it's all cool. I agree that it's a ludicrous phrase.
So what say ye, art thou for thine god, or art thou aginst.
I have to bow out on that one, I have agnosticism.
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:26
#28
Boom Boom
Isn't "Evangelical Scientists" an oxymoron? 
Thu, 2012-07-05 16:40
#29
I wish people would stop parroting the religious bent of the msm when referring to the Higgs Boson as a "God particle".
lol, it's all cool. I agree that it's a ludicrous phrase.
So what say ye, art thou for thine god, or art thou aginst.
I have to bow out on that one, I have agnosticism.
I agree. Agnosticism is ultimitely sensible. I consider myself agnostic, with regard to all unproven scenarios. Such as alien life or time travel.
Thu, 2012-07-05 22:02
#30
Isn't "Evangelical Scientists" an oxymoron?
I'd read that to mean a kind of Michio Kaku on steroids actually. As though mister Kaku isn't already animated enough.
Fri, 2012-07-06 04:00
#31
Bah humbug, you believe in God, admit it, Fidel.
If there are advanced civilizations in this or another universe with god-like technical capabilities, then, yes, I would believe.
What I don't believe is that Darwinian evolution applies only to this planet in what is a vast ocean of galaxies measuring hundreds of thousands of light years across. I don't believe evolution has any pre-determined length of time after which all life ceases to evolve either biologically or technologically. There is no reason to believe we are the only advanced species of life, or that this planet is the most important life sustaining one among what scientists say could be billions of earth-like planets.
I hold no extremist points of view in that I can not prove empirically the existence or non-existence of God. Scientists now say that life proliferates in what are once thought to be the least likely places here on earth. I believe the universe is teeming with life in various stages of evolution. That's what I admit to believing off hand.
But you seem to be more interested in what I believe personally in the absence of proof positive for. In another thread the poster sknguy points out that Einstein's cosmological constant is estimated to have 10^500 different possible values. Theoretical physicists say some large percentage of those possible universes will be incompatible with life as we know it. But with so many possible universes, our's, they say, overcomes an estimated 1 in 10^120 odds against and is compatible with producing complex life. The odds are astounding, and I can't help but be a possibilist. I believe anything is possible. Any thing.
And lacking in god-like technical abilities and absolute proof for, I can only point us to circumstantial evidence of advanced beings having visited us in the past and continuing today. It's not smoking gun proof, but we should remember that in certain instances circumstantial evidence in abundance is sometimes held up as proof of guilt or innocence in the eyes of the law.
I remember reading about a deer hunter and his dog giving chase to a buck somewhere outside the Toronto area. The man's beagle chased the deer relentlessly, but the buck was crafty and eluded both the hunter and his dog for some time. After an hour of the chase the man grew tired and so did his dog. After reacing a clearing the beagle looked confused not knowing which way the deer went. And the hunter himself never having actually eyeballed the deer began to wonder if it was a wild goose chase. The man and his dog turned and started walking back to the truck content with having tried their best to track a deer which may have passed through their hunting grounds just prior, or the previous day, and perhaps even not at all. But in a moment after they left the clearing the big buck, watching the last of its pursuers from a frozen stance about 100 metres away in the tree line and partially camouflaged by its surroundings, lept and bounded through the brush to safety. The man and his dog were oblivious to the deer's nearby presence all the while.
What I believe personally and without empirical proof requires a leap of faith, like a deer bounding away from us through brush and thick tag alders. I think that there are some things I am just not capable of understanding at this point in human evolution. It's just the nature of the game at this point. We aren't supposed to know all the answers, because then we would become as all-knowing and important as mother nature herself. It could be that the true nature of mysterious and thus far unclassified dark energy will be revealed some day in the future. Perhaps the dark energy governing unknown laws of nature will turn out to be "the force" from Star Wars created by the thoughts of a few creative people. Perhaps dark energy will turn out to be a kind of great grandmother of aboriginal spiritual beliefs. Perhaps mysterious dark energy can only be humanly understood to be the cosmic dance of Shiva.
Fri, 2012-07-06 13:21
#32
I remember reading about a deer hunter and his dog giving chase to a buck somewhere outside the Toronto area. The man's beagle chased the deer relentlessly, but the buck was crafty and eluded both the hunter and his dog for some time. After an hour of the chase the man grew tired and so did his dog. After reacing a clearing the beagle looked confused not knowing which way the deer went. And the hunter himself never having actually eyeballed the deer began to wonder if it was a wild goose chase. The man and his dog turned and started walking back to the truck content with having tried their best to track a deer which may have passed through their hunting grounds just prior, or the previous day, and perhaps even not at all. But in a moment after they left the clearing the big buck, watching the last of its pursuers from a frozen stance about 100 metres away in the tree line and partially camouflaged by its surroundings, lept and bounded through the brush to safety. The man and his dog were oblivious to the deer's nearby presence all the while.
If neither the man or the dog actually saw the deer, then how could the deer actually have existed. Sure, if you tell the story from the deer's point of view, it existed, but from the man/dog duo, the deer effectively never existed.
Fri, 2012-07-06 18:05
#33
If neither the man or the dog actually saw the deer, then how could the deer actually have existed. Sure, if you tell the story from the deer's point of view, it existed, but from the man/dog duo, the deer effectively never existed.
It's just a story. I prolly didn't retell it right, but I think it's a scenario that every deer hunter can imagine happening. Deer can be elusive and downright cagey and especially white tails here in Ontario. They can run you ragged and lose a hunter in so many ways. We like hunting from tree stands up here in the north for that reason. And that is an art in itself. My elder brother is a prolific deer hunter and has a few tricks of his own he refuses to share with other hunters. I know from my own experience that if they smell ya, you won't see hide nor hair of 'em. And after a few days of bad luck, you have to change spots cuz they likely know exactly where youve been laying in wait for them. All your cammy and religiously not showering for a week can be for nought.
Fri, 2012-07-06 18:07
#34
It's just a story.
Maybe, but you don't want to address the quantum implication of the reality of an object not directly observed.
Fri, 2012-07-06 20:06
#35
I'm thinking we are replacing ourselves atom by atom every day and at varying rates. At some point we are not exact copies of the same physical people we were years before. And so if we are more than just individual sacks of atoms, then what makes us who we are? What part of MacktheKnife defines who you are? If a neurosurgeon was to cut the top of our head open and probe around for the part responsible for "I am", where exactly would he find it? The answer is they don't know. They know where memories are stored and where visual stimulus is decoded but not the part that sees the world through two eyes. They haven't a clue as to where "I am" hangs out.
Sun, 2012-07-08 20:59
#36
Boom Boom
Tue, 2012-07-10 00:46
#37
I agree. Agnosticism is ultimitely sensible...
lol, you make agnosticism sound so conclusive. For my part, it's a continuing journey rather than a particular destination. And I certainly don't find it particularly sensible.
Fri, 2012-07-20 16:18
#38
I agree. Agnosticism is ultimitely sensible...
lol, you make agnosticism sound so conclusive. For my part, it's a continuing journey rather than a particular destination. And I certainly don't find it particularly sensible.
Reserving judgement until the facts are known isn't sensible? Atheism and theism require a leap of faith, agnosticism recognizes we don't, and maybe never will, "know" the answer. How can that be anything but sensible.