Jump to content


Photo

The Mysterious 6Th Power Of Separation


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 September 2014 - 10:15 AM

 You see in any energy transfer in ANY system there is a loss of energy in terms of heat. Once that energy is burned it's gone forever and there is no way to describe that loss in terms of evolution. 

Sure there is.... the energy lost in any energy transfer in any system is called "entropy."  It is described as joules per degree Kelvin.  If one is relating that to mass or a chemical reaction, it may be described as joules per kilogram degree K or joules per mol degree K.

 

(Note:  I'm unable to read the slides also.)



#22 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 02 September 2014 - 11:34 AM

"A men that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" Titus 3:10

 

piasan has had more than his fair share.



#23 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:30 PM

With regard to the width (diameter ?) of an electric cable.  With a background in electronics engineering and more than 25 years as a technician, I happen to know the resistance of an electric cable is a function of its cross sectional surface area and its length.  Since the surface area is determined by the radius squared, how do you get that to the sixth power?

 

The same thing applies to the force of gravity which is a function of the distance between objects squared.  How do you get that to a function in the 6th power.  (Note:  In normal terms, an orbit that is "degenerating" is one that has a reduction of radius... the moon's orbital distance is increasing, not decreasing.)

 

Another example is the amount of light reaching an observer which is a function of the inverse square law.... not the inverse of the sixth power (or root).

"A men that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject" Titus 3:10

 

piasan has had more than his fair share.

That's fine.... I'll simply take that as a claim by Calypsis that he can post illegible (anonymous) images and we should accept them just "because."

 

Maybe he's thinking that since the area of a cable is a function of the radius squared (to the 2nd power) and if we multiply 2 times 3 we get 6.  The same would apply for the inverse square law as well.  The inverse square would be to the 0.5 power which multiplied by 12 would equal 6.

 

Since we're doing mathematical manipulations, we could always say pi (3.141592654) times 1.909859317 equals 6 too.  In other words.... we can multiply just about anything to reach an answer of 6.

 

Calypsis' whole exercise becomes meaningless.....



#24 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 03 September 2014 - 11:22 AM

 

That's right. you are failing to see the bigger picture. Did you even bother to read the explanations for each post of my slide presentation? I quoted the relevant part of each statement and some explanation for most of them.

 

I stated I could not read them...

How can I comment on something I cannot read?



#25 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 September 2014 - 05:54 AM

 

I stated I could not read them...

How can I comment on something I cannot read?

 

Most of them can be read but it might help if one can enlarge the screen if possible. That's as large as they could be in this format. But I did say, " I quoted the relevant part of each statement and some explanation for most of them."



#26 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 04 September 2014 - 06:27 AM

What is relevant or not, is the evaluation you make.

I you want me to evaluate it, you should allow me the same evaluation.

 

If you just make unsupported statements, the obvious reaction is "BS".



#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 04 September 2014 - 07:19 AM

What is relevant or not, is the evaluation you make.

I you want me to evaluate it, you should allow me the same evaluation.

 

If you just make unsupported statements, the obvious reaction is "BS".

 

You just admitted that you 'can't read' the slides...and then arbitrarily decide that what I said was 'unsupported'. O prejudiced one, how can you come to such a conclusion if you 'can't read it' in the first place?

 

Why don't you just post on another subject and leave this one alone since it is clear that you aren't going to give any credibility to what I said.



#28 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2014 - 07:57 AM

You just admitted that you 'can't read' the slides...and then arbitrarily decide that what I said was 'unsupported'. O prejudiced one, how can you come to such a conclusion if you 'can't read it' in the first place?

This sounds like one of my students when they hand in an illegible paper.  I've had students get a zero because I couldn't read their work.  The student objected saying the answers were there.... but when asked to point out the answers, the student couldn't find them on his own paper..... yet I was expected to find and evaluate these responses.

 

It's quite simple....  If I can't read it, I can't grade it. If one can't read your supporting documents, it is impossible to evaluate them.  It's just as if the documents aren't even there.



#29 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 September 2014 - 06:26 AM

 

You just admitted that you 'can't read' the slides...and then arbitrarily decide that what I said was 'unsupported'. O prejudiced one, how can you come to such a conclusion if you 'can't read it' in the first place?

 

Why don't you just post on another subject and leave this one alone since it is clear that you aren't going to give any credibility to what I said.

Nothing to read (that was in my first post already, I didn't 'just' admitted it) = no support = unsupported.



#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 September 2014 - 06:40 AM

Nothing to read (that was in my first post already, I didn't 'just' admitted it) = no support = unsupported.

 

At least 24 of the slides are readable and the others are readable if one can adjust the size. Every single one of them is supported...by the company's/corporations and/or government sources I quoted.

 

But you, my skeptical counterpart, are like a flee on the back of an elephant trying to figure out what that forest of hair and flaky skin is. Because of your belief in an accidental world you are incapable of grasping the bigger picture & the magnitude of the concept laid before you. Therefore the repetition of the same facts in widely divergent realms escapes you completely.

 

I don't know why you would wish to make any further comment here since you don't even know what you're dealing with in the first place. 



#31 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 September 2014 - 08:33 AM

LOL



#32 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 September 2014 - 09:42 AM

LOL

 

You were looking in the mirror when you typed that, right, genius?



#33 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 September 2014 - 10:04 AM

 

You were looking in the mirror when you typed that, right, genius?

 

Its the intellectual elite response ;)



#34 Giovanni

Giovanni

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 23
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • N/A

Posted 19 October 2014 - 01:00 AM

LOL

 

Thanks for enlightening us with your infinite wisdom.



#35 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,891 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 October 2014 - 01:56 PM

 

Thanks for enlightening us with your infinite wisdom.

 

You're welcome



#36 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 27 October 2014 - 05:25 PM

Here, Calypsis4, on 02 Apr 2014 - 9:42 PM, wrote:

 

1. The ancient Hebrew calender which was based on a 12 month 360 day year..

 

In response to this:

 

Just an observation, in the bottom slide you have the number of days in a year=360 and use that as a multiple of 6.  What calender are you using that has 360 instead of 365 days in a year? ...

 

Is this planet Earth that has a 360 days/year orbit? I'm only asking...

No, I'm not only asking: This is preposterous on it's face, that is, self-evidently.

This thread makes me yearn for a six-fingered hand and I'm tempted to reject the "golden mean", which is five...



#37 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 October 2014 - 01:34 PM

Here, Calypsis4, on 02 Apr 2014 - 9:42 PM, wrote:

 

 

In response to this:

 

 

Is this planet Earth that has a 360 days/year orbit? I'm only asking...

No, I'm not only asking: This is preposterous on it's face, that is, self-evidently.

This thread makes me yearn for a six-fingered hand and I'm tempted to reject the "golden mean", which is five...

 

Tell me,schera; how many of the slides I posted on this subject did you read? Answer that first before I decide to reply. Be honest.



#38 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 28 October 2014 - 03:20 PM

 

Tell me,schera; how many of the slides I posted on this subject did you read? Answer that first before I decide to reply. Be honest.

0



#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,434 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 28 October 2014 - 03:33 PM

0

 

Bye.


  • Giovanni likes this

#40 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 29 October 2014 - 04:41 AM

Yes, I confess that not reading your slides is bad form.

I confess, also, to being too sensitive about subjects related to 'Time', which found expression in your usage of a 360-day year for Earth.

I will make a deal with you. If you read something that happened to me that I describe as a challenge to my Agnosticism and which is related to mathematical "evidence" of God, then I will read your slide presentation.

Are you willing?
 

bow_zpsc05a5afb.jpg

 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users