ljfe feels empty without drugs

That energy is present in everything, which is usually associated with a monotheistic view of God. (Ie. God is present in everything). Just a thought that this energy is really this "God" so many choose to put a label on. Even calling it energy does it no justice...words can be very inadequate far to often.

 

Welcome to the real world.

 

there will be no need for drugs after Jan 21 we will all be saved.

 

pretty much my thoughts, as well. JAH was a term found in a particular verse in the book of psalms, an abreviated version of jahovah or what have you.

my very limited understanding of einsteins theor of relativity prevents me from taking severe issue with the comment, but i instinctively disagree for one reason or another.

but to use the term "jah" or any other term identifying a personal, knowable, loving, caring god would do more disservice to your arguement than good.

the post in question does not indicate a belief in the existance of a deity or deities with personality, power, consciousness, or anything else.

 

that is an omnipresent view of god.

monotheistic is the view that god is one, not that god is present in all things (god is everywhere)

 

Yeah but we have the word "God" this is not an Abrahamic term and can be used quite loosley. So if you choose the word "God" people will still understand what you mean as much as they would if you use the term "Jah". But the word "God" is not going to confuse people into thinking you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim and thus will be able to interpret what you're saying outside of the Abrahamic context.

 

one of the very few things i would agree with dawkins on is the necessity of using words according to their traditional meaning for the sake of clarity. this is a recent change in my opinion, and previously i would have accepted the use of the word "god" to convey this kind of meaning.

but traditionally god means a personal, individual, spiritual entity. not a thoughtless, careless, undescribable force causing the beginnning.

"god" is a supernatural being, with thoughts and abilities beyond that of humans. according to the traditional idea, even outside the abrahamic tradition.

 

Wouldn't that be sweet? Energy is measured in "joules" though, which has units of (kilogram-meter/second^2) X (meter) = kilogram (meter^2/second^2) mc3 would have units of kg m^3/s^3.

Mc3 would physically need to have units of
kilogram (meter/second)^3 or kilogram (meter^3/second^3), which isn't the same thing.

So, Mc3 doesn't really "make sense". Perhaps if there was another dimension where they had already figured out that the energy equivalence to matter was in correct proportion to a completely different speed of light.

That "c" is squared, because it accounts for the expansion that an extra dimension adds. In this case it'd be the fifth dimension. So, if you made that c^2 into a c^ 3 you'd be implying the addition of a 6th dimension. Which would increase or decrease the velocity of the matter to determine its equivalence relationship with energy.

E=mc3 is a very interesting theory though...never would completely disregard it, as we could be virtually trapped in our 5 dimensional structure due to the limited elements we are made up of, which could prohibit us from viewing other entirely separate entities.

 

You both make very good points, and I'm pretty much in agreement with both. However, words and language as a whole for that matter is bound to evolve. Not just the addition of new words to represent new realms of thought/interpretation, but entirely different dialects of the same "language" to represent differences in a population that speaks that language as well.

Edit:

Oh and it's not really about being "right" or "wrong" guys, I just enjoy having intelligent conversations with others...it seems to be a rare thing in this day and age, so I really appreciate your thoughts.

 

While i agree that God often means an individual spiritual entity, i think this is a western thought relating to the Abrahamic faith and western concepts of God. I'm not sure that the word is exclusivley used in this fashion. Regardless the word is still less specific then say "Jah".

Not to mention, if the speaker clarifies his/her use of the word "God" it becomes much more obvious then if s/he uses the term "Jah"

Personally i can't say for sure what the exact definition of the word "God" is, in fact im not sure any one can which is sort of my point. I admit i may be wrong but at least in my experiance the term "God" has been used very generally to convey very different spiritual ideas. Where as the terms like "Jah" have been used to convey much more specific spiritual ideas.

 

YAWN

 

if E= mc^3 the world would have been turned to a cinder with alamogordo, and I could toss a baseball, and it would be a thermonuclear weapon.

 

Haha, you don't find terms like "joules", and written representations of equations to be entertaining? Oh I know, it's because the term "spatial dimension" wasn't mentioned huh?

I use to get bored with these discussions when I was in early high school too, now for some odd reason I find it all soooo interesting....Must be a nerd by definition.

Hahaa...well as far as we know in theory yes, we all are.

 

and to be fair, you COULD express it in calories, newtons, or any number of other things, it just becomes a much less elegant equation.

god, it'd be sweet to see how many ergs fat man pulled.

 

blah blah blah blah in one ear and out the other

 

If we went in to calories that'd just be on a much smaller scale...doesn't 4.15 calories or something along those line equal 1 joule?

And a joule is the result of the work exerted (energy expended) by the force of one newton moving the distance of one meter...right? Been a long time since I studied these units of measure.

 

I'm just saying, because of what relativity represents, we could break out the gravitational prisming theory, and express mass as diopters if we had a hardon for excessive conversion.

 

I love how far off track this thread is, keep up the good work every one

 

Well, I wouldn't say I get more "aroused" by science, philosophy or history, but I will say I find those subjects to be much more interesting than most beautiful women.

Please, discuss anything you want, any theory etc...I'm all ears, if I can't give an opinion due to lack of knowledge then I'd love to learn...That'd require a new thread though, as we've already derailed this one.