I know they can also be converted into electrons and positrons.
The following users thanked this post: Thebox
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
“In Numbers 31:15-18, after his soldiers had killed all of the men among the Midianites, Moses ordered his army officers to kill all of the male children, kill all of the nonvirgin females but to save alive all of the virgin girls for his troops. Prior to this, the Israelites had taken all of the animals and goods of the Midianites and then burned all of their towns.
If genocide or "ethnic cleansing" is a war crime, then this act of Moses was clearly a war crime…What possible reason could Moses have given in order to justify this horrendous act of genocide? After all, wasn't he the great "law giver"?
Moses claimed that Yahweh, the God of Israel, ordered him to do this, because the Midianites worshiped a deity named Baal Peor. The Midianites felt that Baal Peor was nature's god, the creator of the universe, whereas the Israelites believed that their god Yahweh was the creator. .. So, in effect, what we have here is a demonization of those people who refer to the creator by a different name. These people are accused of worshiping a false god.
"Then stand up and defend your religion" and at least, tell all of us why it is OK for "God" to murder little innocent boys and commit genocide against he Midianite people by proxyFirst, it's the same religion and same god as yours, and the same moses. I would ask you to stand up and defend the same.
through kind gentle Moses as depicted in Numbers 31Apparently, he was neither kind nor gentle lol
Getting back to the subject of the thread I think euthanasia should only be used of those who have made it very clear while still in control of all their mental faculties that it is their expressed wish that this final act of love and mercy be done for them when they no longer have the means to do it for themselves.
Well I do not think Einstein actually said space was curved in anyway but rather space-time was curved, so I suppose the answer to your question depends on how we interpret space-time.
If we considered that space-time only exists between masses then orbital motion would suggest that in some way the space-time was ''spiralling'' and a torque was produced between masses that curved the forces between the masses.
Mass attracts mass, gravity is what we call the force,
Does the space curve? there is no evidence of this
Does the ''invisible'' forces between masses curve? probably but we can't ''see'' it.
Sometimes you actually impress me and this is one of those times.
I fail to see how that impressed you?
https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2012/08/18/einstein_discovered_that_gravity_is_not_a_force_but_a_curvature.html [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]
Yes indeed, but so people understand me I wish to precise with my meanings.
When you miss-use the words, they don't add understanding.QuoteFor several years science told me I was wrong about my subjective experience explanation of ''gin-clear'', yet you agree with me, this tells me nobody understood me because they only looked at my ideas from an objective perception. Your two words you gave me will expand my ideas and now get them understood.
No, I'm not agreeing with you in the way you think.
I'm saying that what you feel about something, or how you perceive it, is your business.
Where you are wrong (and this applies whether or not you sprinkle the latest words you've learned into your posts) is in using your subjective experience to pass judgement on reality. Those several years where science told you you were wrong, science was right.QuoteThe experiments are correct I do agree, but what you are not objectively considering is that the objective experiments are done in the subjective whole of ''gin'clear'', a whole that is constant in it's ''gin-clear''.
It may indeed take 8 minutes for a photon to arrive from the sun, but subjectively my interpretation of distance is correct and we ''see'' the start and end point of the photons journey subjectively simultaneous.
Again, you show how you are trying to overturn objective science with your subjective experience. That'll never work.
Subjectively, you may well think you see the start and end point of a photons journey simultaneously; but that has absolutely zero impact on reality.
Actual experiments have shown that light travel is not instant, so you can't in reality be seeing the start and end simultaneously. How you feel about it can not overturn those experiments.QuoteThis is a concern to me in that something is just not correct somewhere in the objective science thinking and it is incomplete by not considering the subjective which is the interwoven mind experience.
Then you have no idea what science is.
You are ''attacking'' me and not discussing the actual content of the post in an objective manner, it is not my failure to communicate , it is a person's failure to discuss objectively what I have said in the past and what I am saying in this thread. Your intentions are to defend all science, to say all science is fact and does not have room for improvement.
This is subjective education and the very fact that what you learnt you had to accept even if you had a biased opinion.
You are not being objective if you are not willing to think and only willing to reply defending the present information .
You clearly have not thought in any detail about the constant whole you and I subjectively ''see''.