Log in

View Full Version : Life possible on new planet


Lou Reed
2007-04-26, 11:12
is it?

Pilsu
2007-04-26, 12:36
Go away, this has nothing to do with the forum. I've seen morons spam it everywhere lately without realizing MARS is considered fucking habitable by the criteria. God's not up to anything until they actually find life so fuck you

mvpena
2007-04-26, 18:25
ZOMG... T3H MOREMENZ W3RE RYTE!! :eek:

Lou Reed
2007-04-27, 13:24
http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=1998863




Suppose God exists,




THese are posts of relitive significance



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Merlinman 2005



Time isn't, IMO, the FOURTH dimension, it's the EXTRA dimension.

The whole scenario with a 2d land, and a sphere moving through it seems wrong to me. Something about it. I dunno what changes a circle would undergo in it's "life," as in, in relation to humans changing from babes to elderlies.

If we were 2d, then we'd say the thrid dimension was time. We wouldn't be able to envision a sphere because there is no up and down in a land like that. A circle's 3d equivalent would look like an elongated oval, right? Or like a windsock thingie, with a small curved side, and a long curved side.

gosh did that make sense?



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Time may be used as a measurement:

"It took ten minutes to walk from Mac Donalds to Big Mac"

Also;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time

this explains that such is a measurement properly.

You may consider that time has nothing to do with religion or God. Maybe, time is the unwritten spaces that make the universe so;

"The earth takes three hundred and sixty five days to cirlce the sun."

and so forth....









------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




shape and form:

Is an object stationary?

Is it alive?



Quote

Merlinman2005:

The whole scenario with a 2d land, and a sphere moving through it seems wrong to me. Something about it. I dunno what changes a circle would undergo in it's "life," as in, in relation to humans changing from babes to elderlies.

If we were 2d, then we'd say the thrid dimension was time. We wouldn't be able to envision a sphere because there is no up and down in a land like that. A circle's 3d equivalent would look like an elongated oval, right? Or like a windsock thingie, with a small curved side, and a long curved side.



Time itself is used as a calculative. It is a measurement; a tool.

If you are to calculate the measurement of form:

if you are to suggest a fourth dimension in reality one can suggest that as there is movement, there is a calculable figure or shape to which is also a seminal shape, parallel to this shape and can be inverted if you take into account direction of one point ('O'-dimension) or of four points i.e.,

--------------------------------------------

a square:

four points of equal distance and each side parrallel to on either direction. At the centre is O.





Time is used in the following calculation:

It is suggested that as there is a point O, in order to for this to initiate.

A structure built on form in the reality around us. More exact calculation is required for a fourth and fifth dimension, the suggested creation of that which is physically improbable.







------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Can God create a rock so heavy that even he himself can not lift it?

I remember the last time this was posted. One user posted something about segmenting the questions into two parts.





If there is God,

and if he were to attempt such a thing,

it would require its placement in physical form.

The answer is yes



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumtion that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created.

In the event of event horizon,

the collapsing of structure is not physical or elemental but partical and in theory requires a time trigger understood as

a The metric tensor

The metric tensor is a central object in general relativity that describes the local geometry of spacetime (as a result of solving the Einstein field equation???). Using approximation, the metric can also be thought of as representing the 'gravitational potential'.

The metric is a symmetric tensor and is an important mathematical tool. As well as being used to raise and lower tensor indices, it also generates the connections which are used to construct the geodesic equations of a /motion...

Its theory until it happens/

it would require time measurement to achieve a required invariant.

In the occurance of

time A - the invention of such structure

time B - in the event of such mass that

B time(a stone of mass and structure that it is the whole form in place occurring between A and C in time

time C - you dont need God to do it



You could probably throw another one on for good measure...

you know,

make sure...






------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




[b]In theory an object may be created as such, however under the presumtion that God can do so a whole new structure would need to be created.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Twisted ferret

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Oh and did I only use nouns there? I didn't notice. I could've gone with "honest a help," or "Grow a yellow." Nonsensical things that He should still be able to do if he's expected to do this rock thing.

You consistantly seem to think that if you can fufill the details of an argument, you are correct. You're just splitting hairs again. After Image's main point is not that you can't use nouns as verbs; it's that your supposed refutations are using the English language wrong. "Grow a help" uses a verb (help) as a noun; it's equally as wrong as using a noun as a verb. Your "answer" here doesn't change anything.

The rock paradox is perfectly understandable, and not nonscensical at all. It's asking: Can an omnipotent being defy its own omnipotence? Can an omnipotent being do the illogical? Yes or no. It is far from meaningless, and is easily answerable. "Can God grow a help", however, is without meaning. It is not a contradiction of logic. It is not dealing with an error in logic, as the rock question is; it is dealing with an error in the English language. They are completely different subjects, completely different forms. The rock question is about a contradiction in logic; please tell me where the contradiction in logic is in growing a help. There is none, because growing a help isn't illogical - it's nonscensical.

If God could do the illogical, it doesn't mean that he could grow a help - growing a help has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with language.