Archaeology of the New Testament

[Into the Night]

no.

it only matters to AI Scientism totalitarian masonic fucksticks.

Random words. No apparent coherency.

Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not my job to teach you high school level physics, unless you want to offer to pay me tuition.

Science isn't a school.
You deny science.

A stationary magnetic field does not create an electric field.

Yes it does.
There is no such thing as an absolute 'stationary'. You are ignoring Einstein's laws.

Only a moving magnetic field creates an electric field.

A magnetic field is electrical in nature.
There is no absolute 'stationary'.

Same for stationary and moving electric charges.

There is no absolute 'stationary'.

An electromagnetic filed is the special case when you have a moving magnetic field creating an electric field, and vice versa.

There is no absolute 'stationary'. A magnet has an electromagnetic field.

That's precisely why I can talk about an electric field when I am alluding to the inverse square math of Colomb's law for electric charges.

Random equation. No apparent coherency.

The Universe is not mathematics.
The Universe is not a field.
The Universe is not a magnet.
The Universe is not mathematics.
The Universe is not science.

The Universe is unorganized.

 

[Into the Night]

That I fixed for you.

You didn't fix anything.
You can't blame your problems on me or anybody else.

 

[ZenMode]

So you do not believe the fundamental forces of the universe behave in a universally consistent, orderly, mathematical, and lawful way.

I think the forces, like gravity, exist and generally behave in a predictable manner. I believe the electrons orbiting a nucleus of an atom also behave in a predictable manner.

The fact that nutjobs @Into the Night, @IBDaMann, and @Jerry Mathers agree with you hurts your case, not helps it.

You know who agrees with me? Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

Yes, they have opinions, also.

The unified four fundamental laws of physics existed from the very moment of creation, at least earlier than a thousandth of a nanosecond after the origin point.

Ok. Doesn't mean a sky wizard created and injected them into the universe.

They existed before matter, so you can't say they are just subjective human descriptions of matter.

ok?

It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of science.

No, it's definitely belief. You aren't just saying the forces exist, and are mathematically explainable by man, you are saying a conscious being created them and injected them into the core of the universe.

As far as our best science tells us, the four fundamental forces of nature existed at the very beginning of the universe, even before matter like quarks and electrons did.

ok. The "when" or "how long" isn't relevant.

Tennis balls are following universal laws of mechanics and laws of conservation. These are universal properties of the comos. They are not subjective rules invented just for tennis balls.

Right, but the random movement of the tennis balls, if they were dumped from the roof of a house, could be explained scientifically/mathematically despite the fact that they were dumped from the roof of a house.

Science is the study of process. It describes. It does not ultimately explain. We have spent 500 years devising elaborate ways of making accurate predictions for what gravity does and how it behaves. But after 500 years, we still have no explanation for the origin of gravity, why matter distorts space time, nor why gravity manifests as a universally consistent mathematical relationship.

Again, even if that is true, it changes nothing about your claim of a sky wizard.

 

[IBDaMann]

It's not my job to teach you high school level physics,

The reason that it is not your job to teach high school level physics to anyone is that you don't understand high school level physics well enough to teach anyone. You blew it, and you revealed that everything you are posting is just a direct copy-paste from the internet, without any cognizance of context or accuracy. As a result, you post egregious errors for which there is no excuse.

A stationary magnetic field does not create an electric field.

You are pivoting now in a desperate attempt to save face. It's too late.

An electromagnetic filed is the special case when you have a moving magnetic field creating an electric field, and vice versa.

Neither is electricity.

 

[IBDaMann]

[ Fear of AI Tools Omitted ]

You are one of those who is pushing to get tools banned and the global economy destroyed.

 

[IBDaMann]

You know who agrees with me? Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking.

Dead people, for whom you do not speak, do not agree with you.

Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking both acknowledged the random distribution of matter throughout the universe, and the statistical need to speak to "average density" and to the homogeneous and isotropic nature of the distribution.

Einstein and Hawking agree with me, and join me in demanding that you cite some test of randomness that the universe fails, or we must dismiss your arguments summarily.

The unified four fundamental laws of physics existed from the very moment of creation,

Are you confusing "laws" with "forces" because you don't know the difference?

at least earlier than a thousandth of a nanosecond after the origin point.

How, exactly, did you verify this?

They existed before matter,

How, exactly, did you verify this?

so you can't say they are just subjective human descriptions of matter.

I can certainly call booooooolsch't whenever I read it. Really, how did you verify all of the above?

It's not a matter of believing.

Yep. It's a matter of pure religious faith, just like when you and your warmizombie brethren claimed that there is no longer any debate about Global Warming, only about when the Climate Catastrophe, and the end of days, will arrive.

You and your doomsday cults. Too funny!

It's a matter of science.

... repeats the guy who doesn't even know what science is.

As far as our best science tells us,

What are the varying grades of science? Your implication is that science is subjective somehow, and that you are picking and choosing only that science scripture that appeals to you most profoundly.

Don't you think you should learn what science is? i.e. that it is not the religion you think it is? Would doing so ruin your faith narrative?

Why didn't you just stick with Climate Change and your Global Warming prayers to Climate?

the four fundamental forces of nature existed at the very beginning of the universe,

What will you do when science is rewritten and those "fundamental forces" are eliminated from the new models as having been erroneous all along?

even before matter like quarks and electrons did.

How will you react when your religion is shattered and all subatomic particles, e.g. "quarks," disappear along with all the fad "science" of the past?

Tennis balls are following universal laws of mechanics and laws of conservation.

You haven't shown how Einstein, Hawking and I are somehow incorrect about the random distribution of matter throughout the universe.

Science is the study of process.

Nope. Science is the collection of models resulting from the study.

It describes.

It models.

It does not ultimately explain.

It can. It explains to the extent that it does. Not fully, but some.

We have spent 500 years devising elaborate ways of making accurate predictions for what gravity does and how it behaves.

Did you just use the pronoun "we", as though you are one of these brilliant people who have actually made contributions? Nobody has spent 500 years doing anything, and you haven't ever gotten anything right about science; you don't even know what science is, despite being told many times.

FYI, General Relativity denies the force of gravity. Was Is Einstein wrong?

But after 500 years, we still have no explanation for the origin of gravity,

Maybe there isn't any. General Relativity says that there isn't any, but you say there is. Who is correct?

why matter distorts space time, nor why gravity manifests as a universally consistent mathematical relationship.

How does gravity manifest and what was Einstein thinking when he abolished gravity from science?

 

[Jerry Mathers]

Ai is over-leveraged, hallucinating, mostly gay stupidity, which eqals tyranny and economic ruin.

​

 

[Jerry Mathers]

are "too big to fail' notions free market?

no. they are fascism.

 

[Cypress]

you don't understand high school level physics!

"An electric field is an invisible region of force surrounding any charged object. When a charge is stationary (static electricity), it produces only an electric field and no magnetic field."

~ AI Summary​

​

At some point, you are just going to have to accept that what I write is generally correct and accurate without me having to prove it over and over and over with independent corroborating sources.​

.​

 

[Cypress]

The Inverse Square Law is not Coulomb's Law!

An eighth grade algebra student could look at Coulomb's law and tell you it is an inverse square law.

 

[Cypress]

I think the forces, like gravity, exist and generally behave in a predictable manner. I believe the electrons orbiting a nucleus of an atom also behave in a predictable manner.

Yes, they have opinions, also.

Ok. Doesn't mean a sky wizard created and injected them into the universe.

ok?

No, it's definitely belief. You aren't just saying the forces exist, and are mathematically explainable by man, you are saying a conscious being created them and injected them into the core of the universe.

ok. The "when" or "how long" isn't relevant.

Right, but the random movement of the tennis balls, if they were dumped from the roof of a house, could be explained scientifically/mathematically despite the fact that they were dumped from the roof of a house.

Again, even if that is true, it changes nothing about your claim of a sky wizard.

I don't believe a wizard, witch, or warlock created the laws of nature either.

So you agree there are universal natural laws that are manifested as consistent mathematical relationships.


But you have yet to commit to saying which of these serves as a better explanation:

A mathematically rational universe had an irrational cause.

or​

A mathematically rational universe had a rational cause.

​

p.s.: when it comes to the universal laws of the physical universe, who's opinions do you put more weight on:​

​

You, @Into the Night, and @Jerry Mathers?​

​

Or, Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking?​

.​

 

[Cypress]

There is no absolute 'stationary'. A magnet has an electromagnetic field!

"According to Faraday's Law of Induction, an electric field is only induced by a changing magnetic field. A stationary, constant magnetic field has zero time derivative ({dB}{dt} = 0) and does not create an electric field."

~AI summary​

 

[Jerry Mathers]

So, you are blaming me for your hatred of tools?

 

[IBDaMann]

"An electric field is an invisible region of force surrounding any charged object.

This is not electricity; you should be embarrassed for never having learned what electricity is.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why are you scheming to get tools banned and the global economy destroyed?

 

[Cypress]

"An electric field is an invisible region of force surrounding any charged object. When a charge is stationary (static electricity), it produces only an electric field and no magnetic field."

~ AI Summary​

This is not electricity! you should be embarrassed!

A "charge" is electricity.

​

"When a charge is stationary (static electricity), it produces only an electric field and no magnetic field."

~ AI Summary​

 

[Cypress]

what was Einstein thinking when he abolished gravity from science?!

Einstein did not abolish gravity. He changed how we think about it. In non-relativistic frameworks, Newton's classical law of gravity works just fine, and is a very accurate mathematical description of physical reality.

If you had ever set one foot inside an introductory high school or college physics class, you would know the classical Newton's universal law of gravity is still one of the first things taught.

 

[IBDaMann]

A "charge" is electricity.

Incorrect. You just don't know how to read.

_______________________________
Is an electric field electricity?

Copilot said:​

Copilot

Not exactly.

An electric field is not electricity itself. Rather, an electric field is a condition of space that can exert a force on electric charges.
_______________________________


Everybody knows this ... except for you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Einstein did not abolish gravity.

Wrong. Next!

He changed how we think about it.

Nope. Einstein eliminated gravity entirely. You just aren't familiar with General Relativity.

In non-relativistic frameworks,

We're not talking about this, now, are we?

Why are you pretending to insert yourself into this kind of discussion?