|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 25, 2008 23:16:01 GMT
hellyp, It suprises me just how blinded some people are by teachings. Yeah. Of course, you can learn an awful lot of useful stuff from 'teachings' too - if you pick the right teacher/s. Do you think I need explaining to? If so, I wish you would. I'd be interested to see what you have to say. It would definitely be better for me than the above, which just seems to be a way of avoiding answering anything, delivered in a vaguely dismissive and condescending way. No. I can't use it, I haven't seen it. Although since I don't have a 2 year old child, I am unlikely to use its jigsaw as an example either. Well why didn't you say so? Your analogy only works if you use as the comparison a single specific jigsaw which you have seen, but which you did not mention until now. Not any old jigsaw will do! In fact most jigsaws will not do. No, not even that. Only ONE jigsaw, chosen by you, is to be used. Of course, this changes everything. Look, here's the thing. It's simply not true to say that because we don't know the final answer, everything else we have leading up to the final answer is useless. |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 25, 2008 23:17:09 GMT
Oh, thank god for wikipedia.... the saviour of all that needs to be known. All objects with mass do not attract each other because if they did there would be a big blob of mass in the universe surround by a much larger blob of everything that is not mass ...such as? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 25, 2008 23:18:18 GMT
Show me the math ematical equation of a tree? If there is not one to do so, does that then mean that a tree is not a living organism in the eyes of science ? Carbon dioxide+water >>> sunlight & chlorophyll >>> glucose + oxygen thats the equation of photosynthesis as taught at GCSE science level. I implied does a tree exist mathematically, not, what appears to sustain a tree |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 25, 2008 23:24:57 GMT
Actually you asked to be shown 'the mathematical equation of a tree'.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 25, 2008 23:26:36 GMT
hellyp,
You can not have your cake and eat it.
You can not assume about a tree because it looks right. It must be proven to exist. If people using science can not explain the entirety of a tree (including it's intelligence), how can people possibly be ignorant enough to believe they can use science to explain things that are light years away. It's theories from calculated assumption.............. Rubbish
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 25, 2008 23:33:58 GMT
You remember just before when you asked what 'self-evident' was? Well, go and have a look at a tree. Can you see it? Touch it? Yes? Great. It probably exists. OK - maybe you think your senses are not to be trusted. Fair enough. Grab a passer-by and ask if they can see the tree. When they have finished laughing, they will confirm your diagnosis that yes, you have in fact found a tree.
Anyway, I just can't seem to get across to you that people do not believe that we are in a position to explain everything there is by using science. If this was the case, we'd know if God was real, how the Universe was made, whether it is infinite or finite.....you get the picture.
But I'm intrigued by the intelligence of the tree. I wish to learn more. Can you help me out?
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 25, 2008 23:36:44 GMT
hellyp
I believe (my scientific theory) that individual trees have differing intelligence levels.
For example some are stupid and expand their branches in a way that results in a major un equal balance, making them very unstable...
Some tree's are more intelligent because they spread their branches symmetrically, which makes them very stable.
I have studied thousands of trees to derive at this conclusion.
Will you contradict me now or offer me an explanation as to why tree's are not intelligent ??
|
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 25, 2008 23:38:58 GMT
;D Thanks, that was great. Now - any chance of you actually answering my questions instead of fobbing me off with weak insults?
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 25, 2008 23:56:23 GMT
I was not insulting you and look up.... I did reply
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 26, 2008 0:06:45 GMT
hellp
With your limited experience of jigsaws, you theorised and were wrong. All that is, has far more versions than you could (as of yet) comprehend.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 26, 2008 0:09:13 GMT
stephen hawkins can not comprehend them either
|
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 26, 2008 0:54:50 GMT
stephen hawkins can not comprehend them either Through rigorous and prolonged observation, I have formulated a theory. My theory is you have nothing to contribute to a scientific debate because you lack even the most fundamental basic concept of how science works. You are unqualified to comment on it. Your input is juvenile and facetious, and you are unwilling or unable to accept basic information which is designed to aid you to understand. I suspect you might be mildy mentally retarded. Be that as it may, I am sure you would feel comfortable living under a bridge and charging a toll to passing goats. |
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on Apr 26, 2008 1:45:43 GMT
stephen hawkins can not comprehend them either Through rigorous and prolonged observation, I have formulated a theory. My theory is you have nothing to contribute to a scientific debate because you lack even the most fundamental basic concept of how science works. You are unqualified to comment on it. Your input is juvenile and facetious, and you are unwilling or unable to accept basic information which is designed to aid you to understand. I suspect you might be mildy mentally retarded. Be that as it may, I am sure you would feel comfortable living under a bridge and charging a toll to passing goats. I feel sorry for you Bob |
|
|
|
Post by bobdezon on Apr 26, 2008 2:38:52 GMT
Your opinion means less than nothing to me, please convert your faux pity into a desire to educate yourself.  |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 26, 2008 9:31:10 GMT
hellyp I believe (my scientific theory) that individual trees have differing intelligence levels. For example some are stupid and expand their branches in a way that results in a major un equal balance, making them very unstable... Some tree's are more intelligent because they spread their branches symmetrically, which makes them very stable. I have studied thousands of trees to derive at this conclusion. Will you contradict me now or offer me an explanation as to why tree's are not intelligent ?? Hmmm very interesting. Although I am greatly impressed by your 'research', I must inform you of a small oversight which may affect the validity of your 'theory'. It's such a tiny thing that I hesitsate to even mention it. It's so miniscule that it will probably be considered to be a very petty thing by the scientific community. Nevertheless, I humbly offer up this minute spec of insignificance for your consideration. Intelligence requires a BRAIN, something which I am almost completely sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) that trees lack. So I guess that falls into the second part of your question - offering of an explanation as to why trees are not intelligent. Christ almighty. |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 26, 2008 9:34:20 GMT
I was not insulting you and look up.... I did reply Yes, you edited your post, removing the insults and putting in their place a (no less insulting) 'theory'. However, there was another question you did not answer. You claimed that all objects with mass do not attract each other, otherwise there would be a big lump of everything with mass, and then an even bigger one containing everything without mass. I asked '...such as?'. What I meant by that was 'which 'things' without mass are you referring to?' So - what are these things without mass? Your 'knowledge' of gravitation is, I believe, a source of great entertainment value so I'm looking forward to the reply. |
|
|
|
Post by hellyp on Apr 26, 2008 9:36:51 GMT
hellp With your limited experience of jigsaws, you theorised and were wrong. All that is, has far more versions than you could (as of yet) comprehend. No doubt you do comprehend things though. So I'm very curious to understand why you conentrate on the perceived inadequacies of others, rather than benefitting the whole of humankind by moving your light of epic proportions from under that bushel. Please - I beg you - share the knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by fattulip on Apr 26, 2008 11:02:53 GMT
I implied does a tree exist mathematically, not, what appears to sustain a tree Lets take one of Mandelbrot & Frame's models of a fractal tree. I'm choosing this one because it's a nice looking one; ![]() i9.Report this post to Admin please.com/albums/a72/FatTulip/variabletree.gif[/IMG] Mathematically it's a variant on a Fibonacci series of numbers in two dimensions. If you don't follow the maths, you can see it is a pretty fair but crude representation. If we add to this a third dimension for depth and introduce further variables for the introduction of water and nutrients, then the passage of the sun, weather cycles and other environmental factors then you get a pretty good representation of a tree existing mathematically. Furthermore, in the 'real' world, scientists will often use a section of the structure of a fossilised tree to determine environmental variables in a time prior to the keeping of records. In conclusion, although I do not have 'the equation of a tree' to hand in my Collins Ready Reference book, there most certainly is one. |
|
|
|
Post by martialeagle on May 4, 2008 10:13:05 GMT
Scientists "proved" we put a man on the moon, I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by mysticsl1m on May 8, 2008 18:30:48 GMT
Scientists "proved" we put a man on the moon, I'm just wondering what your views are on this. there is also proof if you research, stating that man has not walked on the moon. All to do with shadows from light sources etc. Apparently ?? |
|
