Anook wrote:Well, now that I think about it....
After reading Sets response, I agree with him.
"Her." Not "him."
They've been adding up since before you were born:Vuldari wrote:...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...
I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.
They've been adding up since before you were born:Vuldari wrote:[quote="Lupin"][quote="Vuldari"]...the fact that scientists apply "Theories" into scientific exquations with the functionally equivilant value of a "Fact" does not change what they are...
I've put alot of thought into the Gravity issue, and I don't see how the current theory about how gravitational phenominon works is satisfactory at all, in it's current form, for explaining how and why it also effects light. The current theories just don't fully add up yet, as far as I'm concerned.
Perhaps you should try reading the entire article then.That has allready been established. I see no explanations as to WHY is does.
Well, I'm sorry, but, I don't know how to use a ouiji board to communicate with Herr Einstein or Herr Newton for a more accurate explanation.Vuldari wrote: Do you realise that this is using an example of gravity at work to describe itself?
I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.Lupin wrote:No. It states that light has been observed being deflected to a degree consistant with the predictions of general relativity. Which is why it's under the section "Predictions of General Relativity"Vuldari wrote:The Contents of that link can be summed up as..."We have seen that Light bends where there is alot of gravity."Perhaps you should try reading the entire article then.That has allready been established. I see no explanations as to WHY is does.
General relativity postulates that the geometry of space-time is non-Euclidean, and is curved in the presence of stress-energy (in this case, matter.) This deformation affects things propagating through it, such as light.
It wouldn't help anyway...Apokryltaros wrote:Well, I'm sorry, but, I don't know how to use a ouiji board to communicate with Herr Einstein or Herr Newton for a more accurate explanation.
I agree with GeekBoy...This sums up two of my opinons on this matter.geekboy1500 wrote:I have a problem with any kind of shapeshifter, it is not that i do not wish that shapeshifters are real it is my very small area (of MY particular brain) that says that there are just too many problem with MY view of werewolves. However I do think that the many sightings are SOMTHING, I just do not think they are werewolves.
However I do not rule out the fact that in time we may be able to have complete shapeshifting abilities (which would be SOOO cool.)
No, there's a clause in there that wasn't in your summarization thats farily important, as it contains the entire point of the sentence.Vuldari wrote:I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.
Thank you, thats exactly how I feel with scientists Just because they say so, doesnt mean its always true.Vuldari wrote:IMHO, It is not good to believe in the words of scientists and textbook research with unquestioning religious faith. We will Never know Everything, and we will Always be at least partially Wrong and Confused about how the universe works.
...oh...please... you are stuck on the reference to the theory of "Relativity"?Lupin wrote:No, there's a clause in there that wasn't in your summarization thats farily important, as it contains the entire point of the sentence.Vuldari wrote:I DID read the whole article...and understood it. The quotes you shared say the same thing I did...it is just more specific, and says it with longer, fancier, less-common words.
The fact that the predictions are consistant with observation is fairly important in figuring out what's correct and what isn't.Vuldari wrote:...oh...please... you are stuck on the reference to the theory of "Relativity"?
How does that change anything?
Well, you keep replying.NO DUH it is consistant with established, accepted theories. Most things are. Scientists tend to make a big fuss when they are not. ...so it doesn't disproove the theory of relativity...why is that relevant to this conversation? ...which is supposed to be ended, BTW.
This is why I don't think you understand it: you have it backwards. It's not important that 'phenominon' plays by the rules. The important fact is that the 'rules' we came up with match the observed phenomena. The model has to match the universe, and not the other way around.Recognising that the phenominon plays by "the rules" like almost everything else in the universe seems to, does not bring us closer to knowing what it is yet. ...it just helps us to anticipate what to expect from it.
Just to clarify my standing...I am not saying that anyone should ignore what scientists say since, "they don't know what they are talking about".Shadow Wulf wrote:Thank you, thats exactly how I feel with scientists Just because they say so, doesnt mean its always true.Vuldari wrote:IMHO, It is not good to believe in the words of scientists and textbook research with unquestioning religious faith. We will Never know Everything, and we will Always be at least partially Wrong and Confused about how the universe works.