ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
Sad? What is sad about it? One can generally use "force" or energy" to describe the same sort of thing. They're not the same word so to be precise one might be a little more selective, but I think you are just being pedantic in order to talk about anything but the topic at hand and given that I don't think I've even used the word force in this thread it seems a complete non-issue.
Sad, indeed.
Stripe, the two are not the same. They cannot be used interchangeably. They don't even have the same units. This is physics 101.
You claim to have an undergraduate degree in one of the sciences. Either you are lying, or you didn't learn a darn thing while at school.
There is a force holding me down .. something has the energy available to hold me down. Both words can easily be used to describe accurately the same thing.
Now, did you have something like a point, or are you just looking for something else to talk about.
There is a force holding me down .. something has the energy available to hold me down. Both words can easily be used to describe accurately the same thing.
Now, did you have something like a point, or are you just looking for something else to talk about.
The more you try to explain, the clearer it is that you really don't understand this at all.
This statement:
"There is a force holding me down .. something has the energy available to hold me down."
is just plain wrong.
In this thread, and many others, you try to present alternate scientific explanations of natural phenomena- explanations that match your bible-based belief better than the usual scientific ones. Yet, as you are showing quite clearly, you just plain don't know the very basics of physics.
The point is- go learn some basic science, then come back and we can talk.
That's two statements, doofus. And they're both perfectly alright. And stars still aren't clouds.
You really are struggling, aren't you?
No, I am not struggling in the least. Maybe you are looking in the mirror.
Here's what you wrote:
"There is a force holding me down .. something has the energy available to hold me down."
1. If you meant to imply that these two statements are equivalent (and that is what it reads like), then you are wrong. They are not.
2. In any case, the second part of that statement "something has the energy available to hold me down" is false just on its own.
You have the basic physics wrong, irrespective of clouds, tennis balls, stars or camels.
No, I am not struggling in the least. Maybe you are looking in the mirror. Here's what you wrote: "There is a force holding me down .. something has the energy available to hold me down." 1. If you meant to imply that these two statements are equivalent (and that is what it reads like), then you are wrong. They are not. 2. In any case, the second part of that statement "something has the energy available to hold me down" is false just on its own. You have the basic physics wrong, irrespective of clouds, tennis balls, stars or camels.
Well you seem to understand well enough what is being said which is basically what I'm looking for ... if you're looking for descriptions that are technically perfect in every way perhaps you should write things up for yourself.
Now, did you have anything of relevance to add or are you only here to derail what might be a very interesting discussion?
Well you seem to understand well enough what is being said which is basically what I'm looking for ... if you're looking for descriptions that are technically perfect in every way perhaps you should write things up for yourself.
Now, did you have anything of relevance to add or are you only here to derail what might be a very interesting discussion?
Stripe, the difficulty is that this is a thread with technical content, and you just don't understand the very basic terms involved. Energy and force are not the same thing at all.
You are trying to cover up your ignorance with your usual games ("Well you seem to understand well enough.." - give me a break!), but there is no point in discussing planet formation with you until you actually learn some basic physics. You have posted several items on this thread that just don't make sense.
Chair. You cannot have force without energy. Energy manifests itself in heat and force and light and motion and potential whether the potential is from gravity or being held in chemical bonds or nuclear bones. Where is stripe trying to use the terms interchangeably? Does it really make a difference if the criteria is too understand his point?
We know that a cloud cannot condense into a planet because the pressure cannot be overcome by the cloud's gravity. Thus to keep the idea alive we need to assume early conditions of high energy that can dissipate and allow condensation to proceed.
What does Stripe mean here? How does higher energy in the initial conditions help? It looks like his confusion of energy and force is resulting in odd conclusions.
We know that a cloud cannot condense into a planet...
So you're saying that a "solid" cannot come from a "gas"? Have you never been in a hail storm? Further, what do you think a cloud is other than visible suspended particulate and condensed gas? How was the suspended particulate and gas able to overcome it's own "pressure" to condense enough to become a cloud before we even start talking about it solidifying? Stipe, your ideas are abysmally thought out, impotent, biased and born from scientific illiteracy and delusion. Get out of that arm-chair laboratory, put down that comic strip by Walt Brown and read a few non-fictional books for goodness sake.
Last edited by Dr.Watson; February 10th, 2011 at 11:00 AM.
One can generally use "force" or energy" to describe the same sort of thing.
Not even close. Energy (M * L2 / T) is the capacity for a system to do work . Work is an applied force (M * L / T2) over a distance. Completely different things with completely different units and they are never used interchangeably (except by laymen, or illiterates who are trying to sound like they know what they're talking about).
So you're saying that a "solid" cannot come from a "gas"? Have you never been in a hail storm? Further, what do you think a cloud is other than visible suspended particulate and condensed gas? How was the suspended particulate and gas able to overcome it's own "pressure" to condense enough to become a cloud before we even start talking about it solidifying? Stipe, your ideas are abysmally thought out, impotent, biased and born from scientific illiteracy and delusion. Get out of that arm-chair laboratory, put down that comic strip by Walt Brown and read a few non-fictional books for goodness sake.
It is kind of odd when you think about it, I'm looking at one lone cloud in a clear blue sky right now. With a whole sky available to spread out in why would all that water vapor decide to stay in one clump?
Something very fishy about that.
That's two statements, doofus. And they're both perfectly alright. And stars still aren't clouds.
Linear Mode
