Does procreation offer proof;

[majamin]

if i thought your intent was good, i could

but since you know exactly what i mean and why, then show us all that you would like to contribute to the evolution and perform a rendition that is clear.

I don't know what you mean at all. "Life abuses entropy" does not make sense in the least, since entropy cannot be abused. Hence, I wanted to know if there was a word you could replace abuse by in order to clarify your idea. If you understand your own idea, you should be able to rephrase it in order to clear up its meaning. So far, I do not, so I need further explanation.

 

[tsig]

Are you capable of putting on a coat when you are cold?

!

Actually mine grows rather longer and thicker in the winter.

 

[tsig]

i would rather get a lobotomy than accept a belief over experience.

ie... do you intend to equilibrate?

Never rode a horse in my life.

 

[tsig]

Which of the laws of thermodynamics would that break, and how?

The Fourth, Fifth and Seventh at which point it breaks into the Laws of Harmonics and we hear the sweet music of the everlaughing Universe happily chortling behind our back.

 

[tsig]

We don't need a painted wagon for this, Mashuna: what we are going to do is be in several places at once: we can do this because we don't exist in any meaningful sense: we are some kind of process and we are all that process simultaneously: so we can be in several threads at the same time without any problem. That is the nature of "life itself": its position is indeterminate

At least I think that is how it works .

Can you organise a cue so we can be sure that we are all in many places at once? I think some creepy music is what is needed

It looks like the key to posting everywhere at once is to not put any content into any of the posts.

Or

He could have his computer picking out random sentences from a prepared text.

 

[tsig]

Bishadi: Please, please, stay away from the semicolon. You're not using it correctly, and you don't appear to be willing to learn to do so, so just stay away from it.

If you noticed his misuse of the semicolon you're reading his posts much too closely.

 

[Bishadi]

I'm a real scientist. Several states can attest to my integrity.

ok.

i will never contest that until you render what is not true. ie.. i can only witness what is between you and i

However, I have no clue what gravity is

that is fair but then to say a black hole IS dis or is dat.......... is all speculation (even if mathematically predicted and accepted) and it dont mean it is real

--I have a vague notion that it's warped space-time (I've read Hawking's books, and a few others)

and if heat is on a highway does it, can it, will it often redirect light (a mirage)?

just like star light going thru the corona of the sun?

have you ever read the evidence from the experiments themselves?

The reason? That integrity thing you mentioned. It's outside my area of expertise, and I therefore admit, to myself and to others, that I simply don't know.

i bow to honesty. ie... i would love to be able to put my life on your words if you held such integrity.

That's why the whole "combining fields" or "crossing diciplines" or however you put it fails in many cases

and that is well understood as it may appear quite diverse but even you must believe in your heart that all things have a causal explanation or science would never capture truth (the absolute).

then i must ask, if and i say if, a 'thing' was to be capable of combining knowledge with all the tough inquiry and skepticism of an honest soul, would it be a human being and then would the internet age offer far more capability than any other time in all history?

i mean, is it actually possible that knowledge could evolve to that point? Then is it possible, that you could do it, be fair to humility but literally capable to understand the 'priniciples' of how it worked?

Must they be equal to all of existence (underlying) for the scope to be true?

Could a mathematical theorem perhaps one day render such?

These are what i believe is true and to me, a paradigm shift of comprehending enables mankind to know itself. (the priority)



i am all over the place, because choose to see the works from across the world. i have walked on more campuses during my life then any but mary jane (a bet i will stand on)

as i care for seeking reality over needing to prove myself. I like to be hammered as i check myself everyday.

i can sustain what i say and to the extent that if i dont know, then i ask and then finally seek to comprehend the phenomenon.

i dont give in to anything but "what is real"

 

[Bishadi]

It looks like the key to posting everywhere at once is to not put any content into any of the posts.

Or

He could have his computer picking out random sentences from a prepared text.

how about original? Just honest!

 

[Bishadi]

Actually mine grows rather longer and thicker in the winter.

imagine that 'instinct' renders mass captured from the environment by intent; abusing entropy!

 

[tsig]

I've asked this before and got no answer so I'll try again:

Ok, Mr/Miss/AI Bishad, you claim to be smart, so answer this question:

If you put something hot in a ThermosTM bottle (aka vacuum flask), it keeps it hot. If you put in something cold, it keeps it cold. How does it know which to do?

I await your answer.

He got the expensive model with the hot/cold selector switch.

 

[tsig]

i dont follow the pirates code.

i offered a venue for any to see the law is abused by life. Hence the law is to be repealed for any to comprehend the causal reason as to what life is.




first post, asked does 'life; abuses entropy"

and offered evidence. seems aftern a few spend to the time honestly assess the evidence, it is 'stupid easy' to comprehend

So all life needs something more than chemical energy to survive?

 

[majamin]

imagine that 'instinct' renders mass captured from the environment by intent; abusing entropy!

Oh ... thank you for clearing up more of your hypothesis. Let's "clean up" your "argument". So far we have:

Hypothesis of the Abuse of Entropy: Abuse of Entropy occurs because (1) procreation causes the life of a mass to decrease in entropy, and (2) instinct renders mass captured from the environment by intent.

Defn of "Life of a mass": The 'life' of mass is the specimen (the same as the flame of a fire) [source]

Defn of "Abuse of Entropy": i.e. life, intends to live (see instinct) [source]

Is that about "right"?

 

[Dinwar]

ok.

i will never contest that until you render what is not true. ie.. i can only witness what is between you and i

You have not extended this respect to others on this forum.

that is fair but then to say a black hole IS dis or is dat.......... is all speculation (even if mathematically predicted and accepted) and it dont mean it is real

That is why I do not discuss these things in terms of what is and what is not real. I discuss them in terms of what I understand, hoping to learn, and I leave authoritative statements ("a black hole IS dis or dat") to the experts. Who, by the definition of "experts", DO have the knowledge that I lack.

and if heat is on a highway does it, can it, will it often redirect light (a mirage)?

just like star light going thru the corona of the sun?

have you ever read the evidence from the experiments themselves?

Some, yes. However, 1) that is irrelevant to a discussion of biology (unless you can demonstrate that refraction is somehow a biological concept?), and 2) you obviously do not understand the subject (refraction is caused by the change in density of the air, as I recall; at any rate, waves refract, be they ocean waves, light waves, or sound waves, when they encounter a boundary between two things with different indexes of refraction [which I have seen--it's a critical concept in petrology]).

i bow to honesty. ie... i would love to be able to put my life on your words if you held such integrity.

Back when I was doing soil sampling for a living people did. And they all went home after each survey.

and that is well understood as it may appear quite diverse but even you must believe in your heart that all things have a causal explanation or science would never capture truth (the absolute).

Causality is a concept central to science, yes, but that does NOT mean that you can take two random concepts (refraction and biology, for example) and mix and match them however you feel. One must look for connections between seemingly disparate branches of knowledge, but not all such branches are connected. The concept of an emergent property more or less shatters what I believe your view to be.

then i must ask, if and i say if, a 'thing' was to be capable of combining knowledge with all the tough inquiry and skepticism of an honest soul, would it be a human being and then would the internet age offer far more capability than any other time in all history?

It depends. If someone were truly honest they could learn a lot today. However, part of honesty is starting at the basics, which you have not done, either in physics, or astronomy, or biology.

i mean, is it actually possible that knowledge could evolve to that point? Then is it possible, that you could do it, be fair to humility but literally capable to understand the 'priniciples' of how it worked?

What in the name of the unholy Old Ones do you think the experts you have continuously insulted here DO?

i am all over the place, because choose to see the works from across the world. i have walked on more campuses during my life then any but mary jane (a bet i will stand on)

Physically being many places does nothing to contribute to your credibility. Simple fact of the matter is that you have yet to understand the basic concepts in the fields you choose to discuss. I don't care if you've studied under Gould himself, you demonstrably do not understand the basics. Therefore, your opinion is irrelevant.

as i care for seeking reality over needing to prove myself. I like to be hammered as i check myself everyday.

It's not a question of that. There are people here who understand concepts neither you nor I are capable of, by virtue of the fact that they have studied and worked to understand them and become experts in their fields. You want to be viewed as at least their equal, or superior. Which is fine; there's always a bigger fish. But to do so you need to pay your dues--you need to demonstrate knowledge of at least the basics of the field. Understanding what biology IS, for example. Not insulting entire diciplines as though they were irrelevant (as you've done time and time again with astronomy). Maybe showing that you understand the math involved, which is a necessary tool for understanding the concepts (even if you don't like to look at physics from a mathematical perspective). Until you do that, you are basically a petulant child demanding that adults take you seriously, for no better reason than "But I WANT it!"

He got the expensive model with the hot/cold selector switch.

Huh. I guess I should have done that. I got the one with the imp in it. At lunch I either get piping-hot popcicles or frozen coffee.....

 

[Bishadi]

So all life needs something more than chemical energy to survive?

seems even the based photosythesis is capturing the 680nm wavelength and from what i understand much if not most of our energy comes from the basic plant processes. ie... what is chemical energy but energy binding mass?

 

[Bishadi]

You have not extended this respect to others on this forum.

all no matter who

That is why I do not discuss these things in terms of what is and what is not real. I discuss them in terms of what I understand, hoping to learn, and I leave authoritative statements ("a black hole IS dis or dat") to the experts. Who, by the definition of "experts", DO have the knowledge that I lack.

black junk is for black holes

i flush daily

Some, yes. However, 1) that is irrelevant to a discussion of biology (unless you can demonstrate that refraction is somehow a biological concept?)

i know hawkings

, and 2) you obviously do not understand the subject

claiming i dont know................. shut up (you threw your equality in the trash in less than a post.


you impose 'obviously' in which i asked a question? and not to you as you are not observing the amount of mass that is within the solar wind (corona)

(refraction is caused by the change in density of the air, as I recall;

but not sure, either way.

at any rate, waves refract, be they ocean waves, light waves, or sound waves, when they encounter a boundary between two things with different indexes of refraction [which I have seen--it's a critical concept in petrology]).

ie... einsteins space bending via the eclipse/eddington thru to hawkings.......... is not valid evidence to prove the theory as it all could be a mirageeeee

Causality is a concept central to science, yes, but that does NOT mean that you can take two random concepts (refraction and biology, for example) and mix and match them however you feel.

i share evidence to exhibit the property (being scientific)

ie... the gecko feet render which property? you look it up!

One must look for connections between seemingly disparate branches of knowledge, but not all such branches are connected. The concept of an emergent property more or less shatters what I believe your view to be.

all that exists is within the universe.

all is bound to the same

the definitions and interpretations are what vary

It depends. If someone were truly honest they could learn a lot today. However, part of honesty is starting at the basics, which you have not done, either in physics, or astronomy, or biology.

i have not done?

seems i was playing within the big boy math before 18 years of age and found how off the crock it was well before you.

do not insult me about what i know

What in the name of the unholy Old Ones do you think the experts you have continuously insulted here DO?

i aint met one on this site as most are like you using way too much assuming.

But to do so you need to pay your dues

go jump in a lake

--you need to demonstrate knowledge of at least the basics of the field.

procreate proves what? and you dont comprehend it.



seems to me, if you an expert you best comprehend life or just shut up

Understanding what biology IS, for example. Not insulting entire diciplines as though they were irrelevant

i love to read the folks works and do most everyday. You are here reading bunches and cant comprehend much but still insult with little credibility but to claim 'they know better than you'

you do know how to insult.


(and so do i)

 

[Dinwar]

claiming i dont know................. shut up (you threw your equality in the trash in less than a post

No. I threw my "equality" in the trash when I accepted a paid possition as a scientist--I am an expert now. My equality with you? I don't WANT to be viewed as your equal. And as for your good will, I say a man can be judged by his enemies.

ie... einsteins space bending via the eclipse/eddington thru to hawkings.......... is not valid evidence to prove the theory as it all could be a mirageeeee

No. That has nothing to do with what I said.

i share evidence to exhibit the property (being scientific)

ie... the gecko feet render which property? you look it up!

I already know, thanks (lizards are a favorite taxa of mine; used to own a few). But this is irrelevant--the subjects you wish to combine cannot be combined, as they apply to different systems.

all that exists is within the universe.

all is bound to the same

the definitions and interpretations are what vary

This "all is one" crap has zero explanitory value. I mean, by your logic one could ask "What is the wavelength of the taxa Galatheidae?" Just because all things are in the same universe doesn't mean that all properties are equally applicable to all systems, which is what you seem to assume.

i have not done?

seems i was playing within the big boy math before 18 years of age and found how off the crock it was well before you.

do not insult me about what i know

Why not? You've continuously insulted the rest of us. But be that as it may, I'm not referring to math here. I mean that you don't even understand the JARGAN of the fields. There are post after post where people attempt to correct you on your use of terms, in this thread and others. This demonstrats a lack of knowledge in that field.

i aint met one on this site as most are like you using way too much assuming.

Wrong. You've met several. You just refuse to acknowledge their expertese, which in no way implies that they aren't experts.

procreate proves what? and you dont comprehend it.



seems to me, if you an expert you best comprehend life or just shut up

Okay. Define life.

ALL procreation proves is that the organism has, well, procreated. It's succeeded in passing its genes to the next generation. I guess it also could be used as evidence for metabolism (gotta build the offspring somehow). But the rest of whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate? No.

i love to read the folks works and do most everyday. You are here reading bunches and cant comprehend much but still insult with little credibility but to claim 'they know better than you'

I have to wonder, who? No works by any scientist I've ever read make the mistakes you do--they comprehend the jargon of the field, and they ask only applicable questions about any system they are studying.

 

[X]

i know hawkings

Obviously.





Some unsolicited advice:

Stop insulting everybody who disagrees with you, Bishadi.
The people on this forum tend to be well educated, and very knowledgeable in their respective fields of expertise. When they tell you you are incorrect, they will generally explain why. If they don't, ask, and someone will. To continue to spout the same nonsense over and over while insulting everyone who explains your errors is rude.
Continuing this behaviour may result in your stay here being shortened.

 

[Foster Zygote]

and no evidence that there was a point of nothing.

Actually, it would be a point of everything.

 

[Mojo]

i know hawkings

5 points.

 

[SumDood]

seems i was playing within the big boy math before 18 years of age and found how off the crock it was well before you.

How about an example of how 'off the crock' it is?