Posted on 11/18/2014 5:34:10 AM PST by UMCRevMom@aol.com
If leftists truly believe this, then why are they so hepped up about solving "problems," combating "evils," and achieving "equality and social justice???"
Of course, he'd still need caddies and cooks, but robotics can take care of that.
“The Principle” is a very bad example of pseudo-scientific hogwash. It is pseudo-scientific, because it purports to use scientific terminology as a foundation for the arguments it presents while grossly and false misrepresenting their actual meanings, definitions, and application to experimental observations. I would go so far as to characterize “The Principle” as a fraud, insofar as its purposefully endeavors to deceive its audience using the logical fallacy known as the “strawman argument.”
To provide one example, take how “The Principle” misrepresents the Earth as being at the center of the observable Universe. In fact, scientific observations do no such thing. The Copernican system describes the Earth as being in orbit around the Sun, rather than the Sun and the other planets orbiting around the Earth as erroneously insisted upon by the Roman Catholic Church in the lifetime of Copernicus. Today, we know Copernicus was correct and the Roman Catholic Church of his day was wrong, because we can directly observe how the Sun is the central body of the Solar System around which the Earth and the other planets orbit.
Given how we know by direct observation that the Earth is not located in a static position at the center of the Solar System with the Sun in orbit around the Earth, it logically follows it is not possible for the Earth to be located at the very center of the entire Universe. Such an irrational claim therefore would thereby qualify as delusional behavior.
Even if a person wanted to attempt to argue it is the Solar System and not the Earth that is located at the center of the Universe because observations always find them to be at the center of the observable Universe, such an argument and conclusion would be irrational and nonsensical. It stands to reason the speed of light dictates the observer’s location will always be and can only appear to be the center of the observable Universe no matter what area of the Universe any individual observer may be located away from the actual center of the Universe. That also assumes there ever can be an actual center of the Universe, because there are many reasons why the Universe may not have a center position at all.
Suffice it to say that anyone who believes in the Ten Commandments has just reason to learn for themselves why “The Principle” is a dishonest work because of the way in which it bears false witness.
Michelson should have just declared the science is settled and the debate is over.
Occam's Razor leads be to believe that 'dark matter', 'dark energy', and 'multiverses' are just mathematical constructs that do not comport with reality.
Does “dark energy” equal “dark matter” times the speed of light squared?
Long before Gallileo, using deductive power of reason based on the scriptures, Cardinal Nicolas DiCusa supposed that the stars were other suns; that the universe was so unimaginably immense that wherever you were would appear to be the center of the universe; that everything in the universe traveled in cyclical curves; and that none of these curves was a perfect circle.
If Gallileo had looked to DiCusa instead the negation of his straw-man Simplicio, he would have launched astronomy 400 years into the future; as if was, his cosmology was so filled with errors that it took centuries to crawl out from his misconceptions.
I think it's more like: Edark = Mdark √c
Could be Edark = Mdark / √c
Interesting. Shall have to lookup Cardinal Nicolas DiCusa later. Thanks.
You’re welcome. Slight corrections: His surname is “de Cusa,” not “di Cusa.” And, like “Da Vinci,” it’s technically incorrect to refer to him by his surname, since it literally merely indicates that he was from Cusa (Kues). Sometimes, nonetheless, this surname is rendered into a “Cusanus.” It’s very painful that neither Galileo nor the Pope (who damnably fell into Galileo’s straw man trap and defended the false Aristotelean view, albeit without a claim of infallibility) was familiar with de Cusa, since he was eventually made vicar general of the papal states.
Both should have read his work, “On Learned Ignorance,” not only for its cosmology, but for the benefits of embracing (rather than denying) ignorance, so as to re-open oneself to new things. He also was a fore-runner of Newton’s Calculus.
It escapes my velocity at the moment, but have they found “dark light” yet? And if so, what is the symbol for “dark light”?
All you have to do is step back a bit to see that this is true:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.