Justus Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Aside from yourself, who in this forum is saying that energy is a real physical substance, Justus? Well, let's see, maybe you.... Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence Nope! Energy is physically real. Here's a link to the post in which my made the statement. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Ummm, no. I was thinking along the lines of the zero energy theory as described here -- http://m.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html Okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Aside from yourself, who in this forum is saying that energy is a real physical substance, Justus? Well, let's see, maybe you.... Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence Nope! Energy is physically real. Here's a link to the post in which my made the statement. LINK I hope that since then you have learned that energy has physical existence but not atomic weight or mass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I hope that since then you have learned that energy has physical existence but not atomic weight or mass. You mean like God? But I thought God didn't exist because everything that is real is composed of matter, therefore since the Spirit has no mass it therefore couldn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I hope that since then you have learned that energy has physical existence but not atomic weight or mass. You mean like God? But I thought God didn't exist because everything that is real is composed of matter, therefore since the Spirit has no mass it therefore couldn't exist. Not like God. You seem to be confused. Who said that everything that is real is composed of matter? You also seem to be mixed up about existence. Having no mass doesn't cause something to not exist. There are many ways to demonstrate that energy has physical existence. I've already explained several in the previous thread. To over simplify, heat is a measure of how vast something's particles vibrate. So the mass is a property of that something. Lead (high mass) can be vibrating at the same temperature as carbon (low mass). The matter makes up the lead and carbon. The heat is energy in that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Aside from yourself, who in this forum is saying that energy is a real physical substance, Justus? Well, let's see, maybe you.... Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence Nope! Energy is physically real. Here's a link to the post in which my made the statement. LINK Where do I say that energy is a substance, Justus? Please find that! Posted Yesterday, 12:41 AM Fweethawt, on 08 Aug 2015 - 05:53 AM, said: But, I thought there WASN'T any energy???? Did I misunderstand something somewhere else? If not mistaken I think what was said was that 'energy' is a theoretical concept to explain the force released from matter to produce momentum of mass at rest, yet 'energy' itself is not actual physical substance. But if a real physical substance then what is it's atomic number? You're saying energy is a substance, I'm not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence Nope! Energy is physically real. Where do I say that energy is a substance, Justus? Please find that! You can play your words games with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 You can play your words games with yourself. I acknowledge your expertise at word games, semantic masturbation and linguistic curiosities. Whether your use of them is calculated and intentional or simply a demonstration of a lack of thinking and writing skills is a question of which I do not particularly wish to waste my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Which is obvious true because energy is just an abstract concept that really has no actual physical existence Nope! Energy is physically real. Where do I say that energy is a substance, Justus? Please find that! You can play your words games with yourself. Revealing your attempt to twist my words is something I'm pleased to do for everyone in this forum, Justus. Yet again, what's truly in your heart and your mind is revealed by how you conduct yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 I hope that since then you have learned that energy has physical existence but not atomic weight or mass. You mean like God? But I thought God didn't exist because everything that is real is composed of matter, therefore since the Spirit has no mass it therefore couldn't exist. Jesus exists the same way the Flying Spaghetti Monster (bless his noodliness) and the Invisible Pink Unicorn exist. Dont let these atheists tell you otherwise. Let's stand together! Jesus and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, hand in noodle! R'amen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Don't let these atheists tell you otherwise. It is much the same as the reason that no celestial lights appear in the background of photographs taken outside the earth's atmosphere. Yet illuminate the heaven when view from under the firmament. "... whereas, natural philosophy, mathematical and mechanical science, are a continual source of tranquil pleasure, and in spite of the gloomy dogmas of priests and of superstition, the study of these things is the true theology; it teaches man to know and admire the Creator, for the principles of science are in the creation, and are unchangeable and of divine origin. Thomas Paine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Not exactly. You do understand the second picture involved focusing on the sky with no sun present, followed by a long exposure time that allows the stars to actually be seen? The first photograph was taken while focused on the astronaut at close range with lots of light present and likely, a much shorter exposure time. Even a half hearted Google search would produce many images of the "stars" from outside the atmosphere. Here's one such link: http://qz.com/293651/these-beautiful-images-made-two-international-space-station-astronauts-into-social-media-stars/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Don't be ignorant. There is no firmament. You are using pics from cameras that cannot capture bright foregrounds and starlight at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogueScholar Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 The last picture in the link I posted Justus, tell us all what you saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Don't be ignorant. There is no firmament. You are using pics from cameras that cannot capture bright foregrounds and starlight at the same time. To say the earth doesn't have an atmosphere surpasses the ranch that ignorance, you're out there in brain dead territory. But that's ok, that's what make you - you. And if you weren't you then who would you be. COLDPLAY Yellow notice the reference to skin and bones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Don't be ignorant. There is no firmament. You are using pics from cameras that cannot capture bright foregrounds and starlight at the same time. To say the earth doesn't have an atmosphere surpasses the ranch that ignorance, you're out there in brain dead territory. But that's ok, that's what make you - you. And if you weren't you then who would you be. I would have to agree. Anybody who denies the existence of Earth's atmosphere would have to be brain dead. But what in the world does that have to do with your claim that Earth has a firmament or the implication that starlight can only be seen from inside this firmament? To the ancient barbarians who wrote Genesis the sky was a hard ceiling. And starlight was a dot on that ceiling. They had no concept of basic physics or cosmology. They didn't even realize that the sun causes day. They thought day causes the sun to rise. The fact is that people outside the atmosphere can see starlight just fine as long as sunlight isn't shining directly at their eyes. I've already explained to you twice now how cameras work so you know the limitation of the camera isn't proof that there is a hard ceiling that holds up rainwater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 https://www.spacetelescope.org/images/archive/top100/ There's a bunch of pictures taken by the Hubble telescope of tons of stars, and galaxies, and nebula, none of them taken from inside of earths atmosphere, and all of them have visible light from at least one hydrogen fusion reaction in them... That took less than 30 seconds to find. Edit: Wait, there's one photo that doesn't have any visible stars in it. #25 Saturn. But technically light from Sol is reflecting off it, so, not entirely wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justus Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 That took less than 30 seconds to find. Please tell me that you know that this image from the link you provided isn't an actual photograph. There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been and while it can take grayscale pictures, the distance is significant less than the 20,000 light years away that is given for this image. That must have taken what? 14 or 15 days and which would be how many orbits to gain the necessary exposure. Hitchens had it right, God gave us the Bible so that whoever rejected it would believe anything. The fact is that people outside the atmosphere can see starlight just fine as long as sunlight isn't shining directly at their eyes. I've already explained to you twice now how cameras work so you know the limitation of the camera isn't proof that there is a hard ceiling that holds up rainwater. ... I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; Boo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Justus is trolling this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOutsider Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 That took less than 30 seconds to find. Please tell me that you know that this image from the link you provided isn't an actual photograph. There are no "natural color" cameras aboard the Hubble and never have been and while it can take grayscale pictures, the distance is significant less than the 20,000 light years away that is given for this image. That must have taken what? 14 or 15 days and which would be how many orbits to gain the necessary exposure. Hitchens had it right, God gave us the Bible so that whoever rejected it would believe anything. The fact is that people outside the atmosphere can see starlight just fine as long as sunlight isn't shining directly at their eyes. I've already explained to you twice now how cameras work so you know the limitation of the camera isn't proof that there is a hard ceiling that holds up rainwater. ... I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; Boo I'm aware those images are edited to add color, but that doesn't change the fact that light from those stars was still picked up by the sensors in the camera, on the satellite orbiting earth, in space, outside of the atmosphere. Edit: And, well, the orbital period for the Hubble telescope is ~95 minutes, I have no idea how long these pictures take to expose, or how many passes it takes... ~118 passes can be made in 15 days (assuming my math isn't worse than I think it is). I'll not speculate on whether that's long enough to capture that image, it's beyond my scope of knowledge. Also, you are going to have to cite a source for that quote, I can't seem to find anything related to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Oh look, . . . a photo taken from the moon that proves stars are not points of light on the hard ceiling firmament from the Genesis myth. And this is the camera they used to take that pic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far_Ultraviolet_Camera/Spectrograph You can set your camera to record starlight or you can set it to record close objects bathed in sunlight but you can't do both at the same time. Or at least not until they invent a better camera. Maybe digital ones can someday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Furball Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Hitchens had it right, God gave us the Bible so that whoever rejected it would believe anything. As opposed to believing the bible with its over 1001 contradictions, 194 different ways to be saved, and downright atrocities against innocent humans at the hands of a blood thirsty, and brutally ultra violent creator? Hitchens had it wrong. I don't just believe anything. Absolutely horrible logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 ... Hitchens had it right, God gave us the Bible so that whoever rejected it would believe anything. ... Please provide the actual Hitchens quote/reference for this claim. I suspect you are mistaken, or are lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted August 17, 2015 Share Posted August 17, 2015 I'm certain it was not the late Christopher Hitchens. Perhaps that was a quote from Bobby Hitchens the bus driver. Or maybe it was said by Joe Hitchens the sandwich maker. Though it could have been said by Paul Hitchens who works at the DMV. Edit: I was doing a google search and ran across this possible source: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66167-the-faith-problem/#.VdEmlHjT55g See post #19. Make shit up and then misquote yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts