TheGuy's repeating theme Threads, that're all on the same tangent, merged here.

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Re: The TRUTH..

TheGuy, some friendly advice: You should try reading other peoples posts and choose your moments to add your point or disagreement. These questions you keep asking are very similar, and I think you would have far more stimulating discussions if you tried a less aggressive approach. Cheers. :)
Alley the mediator. Looks good on ya.

Now get out of the way while we try to beat some sense into him! :p
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Re: The TRUTH..

The truth keeps hitting the guy, like someone stepping on a shovel and it hits
him in the head. The only message he can come up with is ouch.
Yes truth is often something we don't want to hear. Some make up a book of
truths and cling to them even though they are not true or only partly true.
In my view, and I don't know if it correct, but to me truth is something that is
fairly easily explained. It not one of those things where if the facts don't match
up it becomes a mystery from God.
Presumed truth is more dangerous than unfavorable truth, because people act
on it even if the statement is not proven to be true. As for the guy, we all know
we are going to kick the bucket and everything after that is speculation by both
believers and non believers alike.
the Bible is about politics not religion, oh it has religious connotations but it became
about politics. I have heard there were many books of the Bible that never saw the
light of day somewhere near two dozen according to some scholars of ancient text.
It all came down to the four men trying to become leaders of the Church, Mathew,
Mark Luke and John. It became a compromise and sometimes the accounts of
what happened don't match up, or give different visions of the same events.
It became like a minority government, something for everyone.
It has also been written and re-written over the centuries and we can't be sure that
it was written the same way twice. How can anyone take the word as absolute
truth under those conditions? The only truth about the subject of religion is we
don't know.
 

Corduroy

Senate Member
Feb 9, 2011
6,670
2
36
Vancouver, BC
Re: The TRUTH..

If discussions of Christianity, philosophy , and spirituality, and science are not to discuss the TRUTH of the matter with reasoning and logical arguments than what the HELL are they..

You could discuss their history, their effects on human society, their psychology implications. There are plenty of things to discuss other than whether or not they're true.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
You claim to have PROOF that God exists..

Well PROVE IT, or take it back..

You continue to PROVE ME RIGHT, in that you continue to refuse to take part in any reasonable disscussion..
Not that the Great Bear needs any help from me in holding up his end, but really, what the Hell is it that you want to discuss? Most of your posts so far are somewhat vague ramblings about the nature of truth and reality, and ad hominem attacks on other posters who take issue with them. Is there some proposition you want to put forward for serious discussion? If so, let's have it, and if not, then exactly what is it that you want here? You appear to be claiming you're interested in a serious discussion about something, so far unspecified, but your attitude seems to be that nobody here is capable of engaging you in one on an equal basis. That's quite false, I for instance am at least as smart as you think you are, and so are a lot of other people here. So put some proposition on the table and we'll see where it goes, or rethink your approach here. You're not winning any points so far.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
Great idea, combining all of his threads, which could be trumped by preventing him to start another thread unless the subject is not one of his delusions.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
All caps only means that one specific word be spoken slightly louder than any of the ones that is not in all caps. It isn't like you deny being one, the magnitude is the only part in question. That is unless your own words mean something different than what they appear to say.
"Even though he is right, lol. And I hate to be a sticky wicket and all, but it's a capital "A", lmao!!!"
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
All caps only means that one specific word be spoken slightly louder than any of the ones that is not in all caps.
Yes I'm familiar with the concept of yelling in text. It's as silly as the bulk of your posts.

It isn't like you deny being one, the magnitude is the only part in question.
Considering the Doctorate, not really.

That is unless your own words mean something different than what they appear to say.
Only to those that have comprehension issues.

"Even though he is right, lol. And I hate to be a sticky wicket and all, but it's a capital "A", lmao!!!"
Yep, denoting a title. As apposed to the orifice from which the bulk of your opinions are gleaned from.
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Light will never be at rest, it always travels at the speed of light, so the question has no meaning. You can, however, calculate the energy of light of a particular frequency, then calculate the equivalent mass, then calculate what the force of gravity would be on that. Wouldn't really tell you anything useful though, you need the equations of general relativity and a far deeper understanding of them than you or I have to get it right.
The formulas were based on that and I didn't even attempt to 'run it'. lol, still, in theory, mass doesn't always have to be in motion to keep it's mass (and the weight that goes with having mass)

Here is the background that made me ask that question.

In one instance travel in space was the topic and the two theories was a sail. If it could collect light and that would provide the needed thrust. My question concerned the other end, once you start to approach a distant star that light would be acting to halt your progress in that direction so it would seem a true sail would only get you stranded a long distance from any star so it's usefulness is zero. Point two was along that same example. When you consider that mass attracts mass (even in space where zero gravity is possible) then if two independent heavenly bodies are attracted to each other then total mass should dictate which object is drawn off course, the smaller of the two is the ones to alter course. The mass of the sail and the ship that is holding it all together would be greater than the force any (visible) light could overcome.
Question two was similar but instead of a sail it was a 'flashlight' and the question was could it propel itself through space. Again that mass vs available thrust comes into play. One other aspect could also affect the way it works. Energy is said to be impossible to create or destroy. In a flashlight holds the energy and it is some of the total mass of the flashlight. A battery is stored energy so it comes 'pre-wound' and flipping the switch allows some of that stored energy to be converted into light. Wouldn't light qualify as the transfer medium (space with a predetermined distance) and if it was related to mass the reflections could not be possible.
That brings up the final part of the journey. We see stars in the heavens because they shed light, to do that they have to meet certain requirements along the mass,density parameters. When a star gets very close to the event horizon of a black hole (center od all galaxies that are imploding) it is said to accelerated past the speed of light and gravity is so great not even light can escape. With that shift in gravity why does a star still shed light when the parameters that allowed it go give light are most likely exceeded and the body that captured the mass that used to be a sun has not yet reached it critical point where it starts to 'shed mass' (via the 'polar regions' of a galaxy)

I promise that brings it up to date an no follow-ups. With the OP appearing to be hard to pin down has it been established if he is talking about his own faith, etc or is it about the faith in others? From the few post I have read he seems to be suffering from something similar to the Jerusalem Syndrome (a term that was actually used to describe some Christian going bonkers once they enter Jerusalem (a place where Judaism rules). ^The vid I saw had them (one at a time never more than that) could have been on PCP, not that he was dangerous just really messed up in the way he moved from point "A" to point "B". The 'cure' for that person (staged for the Christian tourists BTW) would be to grab him by the collar, spin him around and deliver a stinging right-hand (or left, whichever is strongest) , as soon as his eyes 'clear' hold him close an deliver a knee to the groin (with your weakest leg) if he was at all slouched over he will now be standing straight and tall. The slap is actually a real treatment for some types of shock, the knee in this case is because he's giving Jesus a bad name by his antics. I have no idea how to deliver a virtual slap.

Later

Only to those that have comprehension issues.

Yep, denoting a title. As apposed to the orifice from which the bulk of your opinions are gleaned from.
So a typing finger is an orifice and I have the comprehension issue? You must be getting help, one person cannot be that stupid all by themselves. lol Just a line don't take it to heart.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
...once you start to approach a distant star that light would be acting to halt your progress in that direction so it would seem a true sail would only get you stranded a long distance from any star so it's usefulness is zero.
Any practical solar sail would have to be designed so the vessel could tack, just as a sailing ship can go upwind by zigzagging across it.
...if two independent heavenly bodies are attracted to each other then total mass should dictate which object is drawn off course...
They'll both be drawn off course, but the smaller body will be more strongly affected.
... a 'flashlight' and the question was could it propel itself through space.
Not practically. The force from its beam would be on the order of a few piconewtons, which over the lifetime of the batteries could accelerate it to a velocity of a few ten millionths of a meter per second, according to my quick little back of the envelope calculation. It's not getting anywhere that way.
Wouldn't light qualify as the transfer medium (space with a predetermined distance) and if it was related to mass the reflections could not be possible.
I've no idea what that means. The light going out from the flashlight exerts a tiny force on it in the opposite direction, the change in mass of the batteries as they run down is so vanishingly small as to be not worth considering.
When a star gets very close to the event horizon of a black hole (center od all galaxies that are imploding) it is said to accelerated past the speed of light...
No it's not. It'll first be ripped into its constituent atoms by tidal forces, then they'll be ripped apart into their constituent subatomic particles, they'll be accelerated hugely and disappear beyond the event horizon in a burst of hard radiation. Once they're past the event horizon nobody knows what happens to them, the equations break down at that point.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Thanks.

Having to tack to get to your destination star is a decent solution even if the extra time eliminated that kind of travel indefinitely.

Where is the OP hiding?
 

TheGuy

Electoral Member
Mar 25, 2011
266
0
16
The only thing I claim to know is what we all know..

I am.
I think
I feel
I succeed
I fail
I learn
I have FAITH that theTRUTH can be realized in my mind which empowers me to achive objectives..

This is obviously TRUE, as the TRUTH of how to achive objectives has been realized in peoples minds for all of known history..

Some more then others..

Some realize things before others.. This is also obviously TRUE.

I say nothing that is not obviously TRUE

One thing leads to another..

If this is TRUE and this is TRUE then logic dictates that, that is TRUE..