🕯️ Traditions Tutulongan moba kasi yun ang akma or hindi ka tutulong para sa paniniwala.

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

mali ka, ginawa ang theory of relativity to explain gravity itself, superseding newton's law of gravity. theory of relativity is being used by GPS technology(real life use of a theory yet its still a theory not a fact).

Development and acceptance
Main articles: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. published the theory of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. in 1905, building on many theoretical results and empirical findings obtained by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and others. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and others did subsequent work.

Einstein developed You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. between 1907 and 1915, with contributions by many others after 1915. The final form of general relativity was published in 1916.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

The term "theory of relativity" was based on the E×ρréššion "relative theory" (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.: Relativtheorie) used in 1906 by Planck, who emphasized how the theory uses the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In the discussion section of the same paper, You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. used for the first time the E×ρréššion "theory of relativity" (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.: Relativitätstheorie).You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

By the 1920s, the physics community understood and accepted special relativity.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. It rapidly became a significant and necessary tool for theorists and experimentalists in the new fields of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

By comparison, general relativity did not appear to be as useful, beyond making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. It seemed to offer little potential for experimental test, as most of its assertions were on an astronomical scale. Its You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. seemed difficult and fully understandable only by a small number of people. Around 1960, general relativity became central to physics and astronomy. New mathematical techniques to apply to general relativity streamlined calculations and made its concepts more easily visualized. As astronomical You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. were discovered, such as You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1963), the 3-kelvin You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1965), You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1967), and the first You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. candidates (1981),You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. the theory explained their attributes, and measurement of them further confirmed the theory.

pareho tayo ng source binabasa mo ba ung wikipedia o hindi? wag mo paglaban ang mali mali ka talaga

t’=t/sqrt(1-((v^2)/(c^2)))

In this equation we see that Time and Velocity are variables because neither of them have a constant physical value, like the speed of light “c”. Here we can see that the speed of light MUST be a constant in the universe. This agrees with Newtonian physics, the speed of light being a constant, with time and length being different, this bit obviously doesn’t agree with Newton.

ang relativity theory nag borrow sa newtonian physics lang di sya ginamit para pag tibay ang newtonian physics. t@nga sa source mo na ako kumukuha para patunayan na mali ka di ka ba nahihiya sa sarili mo?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

 

[JackFrost10]

Development and acceptance
Main articles: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. published the theory of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. in 1905, building on many theoretical results and empirical findings obtained by You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and others. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and others did subsequent work.

Einstein developed You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. between 1907 and 1915, with contributions by many others after 1915. The final form of general relativity was published in 1916.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

The term "theory of relativity" was based on the E×ρréššion "relative theory" (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.: Relativtheorie) used in 1906 by Planck, who emphasized how the theory uses the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. In the discussion section of the same paper, You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. used for the first time the E×ρréššion "theory of relativity" (You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.: Relativitätstheorie).You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

By the 1920s, the physics community understood and accepted special relativity.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. It rapidly became a significant and necessary tool for theorists and experimentalists in the new fields of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

By comparison, general relativity did not appear to be as useful, beyond making minor corrections to predictions of Newtonian gravitation theory.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. It seemed to offer little potential for experimental test, as most of its assertions were on an astronomical scale. Its You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. seemed difficult and fully understandable only by a small number of people. Around 1960, general relativity became central to physics and astronomy. New mathematical techniques to apply to general relativity streamlined calculations and made its concepts more easily visualized. As astronomical You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. were discovered, such as You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1963), the 3-kelvin You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1965), You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (1967), and the first You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. candidates (1981),You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. the theory explained their attributes, and measurement of them further confirmed the theory.

pareho tayo ng source binabasa mo ba ung wikipedia o hindi? wag mo paglaban ang mali mali ka talaga

t’=t/sqrt(1-((v^2)/(c^2)))

In this equation we see that Time and Velocity are variables because neither of them have a constant physical value, like the speed of light “c”. Here we can see that the speed of light MUST be a constant in the universe. This agrees with Newtonian physics, the speed of light being a constant, with time and length being different, this bit obviously doesn’t agree with Newton.

ang relativity theory nag borrow sa newtonian physics lang di sya ginamit para pag tibay ang newtonian physics. t@nga sa source mo na ako kumukuha para patunayan na mali ka di ka ba nahihiya sa sarili mo?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
<--- GPS theory of relativity.

its just a theory.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
<--- GPS theory of relativity.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
53
I am reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and in it he mentions that without compensating for relativity, GPS devices would be out by miles. Why is this? (I am not sure which relativity he means as I am several chapters ahead now and the question just came to me.)

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.♦
103k121851175
asked Nov 18 '10 at 13:20
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1,37241930

• 4
  You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 2
  I'm trying to locate my sources on this, but I have read that even if you don't account for general relativity (by slowing down the clocks prior to launch) your GPS would work just fine because the error is the same for all satelites. The only issue would be that the clocks would not be synchronized with the ground, but that is not necessary for calculating your current position. Can anyone confirm this? – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  Found something: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. can anyone comment on this? – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  found something else in this same site: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (some answers mention this)– You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  I looked at that uk site hurriedly and there seem to be some crank "disproofs" of special relativity, so I doubt that that site is trustworthy. There are cranks on stack exchange, too, of course....and on Wikipedia, and in academia, and .....yours truly, – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

And for equations refer to You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

So Stephen Hawking is right!

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1034
answered Nov 18 '10 at 14:53
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
4,42122845

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. which explains quite well why the clocks on a GPS satellite are faster by about 38 microseconds every day. The article then claims that not compensation for these 38 microseconds per day would cause a GPS to be off by about 11 km per day, plainly unusable, and claims that this (the fact that we need to compensate for the 38 microseconds to get GPS working) is proof for General Relativity.

The problem is that while the clocks are indeed off by 38 microseconds per day and General Relativity is all fine, we wouldn't actually have to compensate for it. The GPS in your car or your phone doesn't have an atomic clock. It doesn't have any clock precise enough to help with GPS. It doesn't measure how long the signal took to get from satellite A to GPS. It measures the difference between the signal from satellite A and the signal from satellite B (and two more satellites). This works if the clocks are fast: As long as they are all fast by the exact same amounts, we still get the right results.

That is, almost. Satellites don't stand still. So if we rely on a clock that is 38 microseconds fast per day, we do the calculations based on the position of a satellite that is off by 38 microseconds per day. So the error is not (speed of light times 38 microseconds times days), it is (speed of satellite times 38 microseconds times day). This is about 15 cm per day. Well, satellite positions get corrected once a week. I hope nobody thinks we could predict the position of a satellite for long time without any error.

Back to the original assumption, that without compensation the error would be 11km per day: The satellite clocks are multiplied by a factor just shy of 1 so that they go at the correct speed. But that wouldn't work. The effect that produces 38 microseconds per day isn't constant. When the satellite flies over an ocean, gravity is lower. The satellite speed changes all the time because the satellite doesn't fly on a perfect circle around a perfectly round earth made of perfectly homogenous material. If GR created an error of 11km per day uncompensated, then it is quite unconceivable that a simple multiplication of the clock speed would be good enough to reduce this to make GPS usable.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
answered Jul 31 '14 at 18:13
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
39132

• 6
  Nice. But I have to say that from a the philosophical position of an experimenter, a machine that makes it operators tear their hair out (which GPS would in the absence of of GR) isn't working until those behaviors are understood (which would happen when someone invented GR to explain the anomaly). But that's a philosophical point. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 2
  This is the one correct answer on this page. GPS was significant evidence for GR because we can compare the speed of clocks in orbit to those on earth. However, the accuracy of the GPS system doesn't depend on the satellites keeping exact time. As long as they keep the same time, the system works. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 1
  Actually, GPS is a poor "proof" of GR for the reason you state. gnasher has the correct answer - Einstein field equations are not used in GPS at all (imagine the number crunching involved and the computer power necessary wasting all that energy - not to mention added weight to satellites - especially a few decades ago) – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

ikaw nag bigay ng link bo bo ka talaga tignan mo ung binigay mo daming nag sasabi na false ung claim

 

[JackFrost10]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
53
I am reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, and in it he mentions that without compensating for relativity, GPS devices would be out by miles. Why is this? (I am not sure which relativity he means as I am several chapters ahead now and the question just came to me.)

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.♦
103k121851175
asked Nov 18 '10 at 13:20
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1,37241930

• 4
  You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 2
  I'm trying to locate my sources on this, but I have read that even if you don't account for general relativity (by slowing down the clocks prior to launch) your GPS would work just fine because the error is the same for all satelites. The only issue would be that the clocks would not be synchronized with the ground, but that is not necessary for calculating your current position. Can anyone confirm this? – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  Found something: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. can anyone comment on this? – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  found something else in this same site: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. (some answers mention this)– You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 
  I looked at that uk site hurriedly and there seem to be some crank "disproofs" of special relativity, so I doubt that that site is trustworthy. There are cranks on stack exchange, too, of course....and on Wikipedia, and in academia, and .....yours truly, – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

And for equations refer to You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now..

So Stephen Hawking is right!

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
1034
answered Nov 18 '10 at 14:53
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
4,42122845

• 2
  Is R" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">RR the radius of the earth, or the orbit radius? – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 4
  But what's relevant for GPS is the difference between timestamps from different satellites, right? And since they are on the same altitude they should be time shifted by the same amount, so the differences should be basically the same as without relativity. I mean it doesn't matter how much the error in the clocks is after a day, since the localization error is not cumulative, because the satellites' clocks don't drift away from each other. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 1
  As noted in You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., it is important to note that the values given correspond to the difference between the factors on earth and in orbit - meaning that the E×ρréššions for T1" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">T1T1 and T2" role="presentation" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-variant: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: normal; font-family: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; box-sizing: inherit; display: inline; word-spacing: normal; overflow-wrap: normal; white-space: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; position: relative;">T2T2 as given don't evaluate to the values given, although the values given are correct. Tip of the hat to Michael Seifert who pointed this out. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 2
  dims 15/300000000 != 100*10^(-6), it equals 5*10^(-8). I got my answer by just typing it into google, but it should be easy to see that 15 divided by 3 is going to be a leading 5, not a leading 1. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 1
  Lots of misinformation here. As per the US Naval Observatory (the creators of GPS to replace LORAN): GPS does NOT use relativity calculations at all (repeat, it does NOT use relativity calculations). – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. which explains quite well why the clocks on a GPS satellite are faster by about 38 microseconds every day. The article then claims that not compensation for these 38 microseconds per day would cause a GPS to be off by about 11 km per day, plainly unusable, and claims that this (the fact that we need to compensate for the 38 microseconds to get GPS working) is proof for General Relativity.

The problem is that while the clocks are indeed off by 38 microseconds per day and General Relativity is all fine, we wouldn't actually have to compensate for it. The GPS in your car or your phone doesn't have an atomic clock. It doesn't have any clock precise enough to help with GPS. It doesn't measure how long the signal took to get from satellite A to GPS. It measures the difference between the signal from satellite A and the signal from satellite B (and two more satellites). This works if the clocks are fast: As long as they are all fast by the exact same amounts, we still get the right results.

That is, almost. Satellites don't stand still. So if we rely on a clock that is 38 microseconds fast per day, we do the calculations based on the position of a satellite that is off by 38 microseconds per day. So the error is not (speed of light times 38 microseconds times days), it is (speed of satellite times 38 microseconds times day). This is about 15 cm per day. Well, satellite positions get corrected once a week. I hope nobody thinks we could predict the position of a satellite for long time without any error.

Back to the original assumption, that without compensation the error would be 11km per day: The satellite clocks are multiplied by a factor just shy of 1 so that they go at the correct speed. But that wouldn't work. The effect that produces 38 microseconds per day isn't constant. When the satellite flies over an ocean, gravity is lower. The satellite speed changes all the time because the satellite doesn't fly on a perfect circle around a perfectly round earth made of perfectly homogenous material. If GR created an error of 11km per day uncompensated, then it is quite unconceivable that a simple multiplication of the clock speed would be good enough to reduce this to make GPS usable.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
answered Jul 31 '14 at 18:13
You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
39132

• 6
  Nice. But I have to say that from a the philosophical position of an experimenter, a machine that makes it operators tear their hair out (which GPS would in the absence of of GR) isn't working until those behaviors are understood (which would happen when someone invented GR to explain the anomaly). But that's a philosophical point. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 2
  This is the one correct answer on this page. GPS was significant evidence for GR because we can compare the speed of clocks in orbit to those on earth. However, the accuracy of the GPS system doesn't depend on the satellites keeping exact time. As long as they keep the same time, the system works. – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
• 1
  Actually, GPS is a poor "proof" of GR for the reason you state. gnasher has the correct answer - Einstein field equations are not used in GPS at all (imagine the number crunching involved and the computer power necessary wasting all that energy - not to mention added weight to satellites - especially a few decades ago) – You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

ikaw nag bigay ng link bo bo ka talaga tignan mo ung binigay mo daming nag sasabi na false ung claim

daming nag sabi walang credentials kagaya mo.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

daming nag sabi walang credentials kagaya mo.

o kaya nga. bat mo pinag pipilitan na kailangan ng relativity theory para patunayan ang newton's law of gravity?

 

[JackFrost10]

o kaya nga. bat mo pinag pipilitan na kailangan ng relativity theory para patunayan ang newton's law of gravity?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <--- bat ka nag aasume na ang theory ay para patunayan ang isang bagay?

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <--- bat ka nag aasume na ang theory ay para patunayan ang isang bagay?

lol. kayo nag sabi nun nung kasama mong athiestang matalino na sabi tested at accepted daw ung big bang theory at ginagamit ng lahat ng scientist. baka nauubos na ung brain cells mo. ang sabi ko di fact ang theory.

 

[JackFrost10]

lol. kayo nag sabi nun nung kasama mong athiestang matalino na sabi tested at accepted daw ung big bang theory at ginagamit ng lahat ng scientist. baka nauubos na ung brain cells mo. ang sabi ko di fact ang theory.

yes hindi fact ang theory kasi mag kaiba sila as explained before with the blueprint analogy kng naiintindihan mo lng. sobrang simple ng analogy d mo pa ma gets ipag laban mo pa ang maling pag kakaintindi mo.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <-- game theory used in real life economics.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

yes hindi fact ang theory kasi mag kaiba sila as explained before with the blueprint analogy kng naiintindihan mo lng.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <-- game theory used in real life economics.

wow used in real life tignan mo ung link mo game nga eh.



wag mo sabihin na fact ang game theory na baliw kana pati game sinasali mo dito kung di ka abnormal.
ang bottom line kahit anong mangyari mali ka sa pinag sasabi mo na totoo ang bigbang invalid na lahat ng sasabihin mo pero sige i'll entertain you para ilabas kung paano represent ng atheist ang kanilang logic.

parang sabi mo blueprint daw totoo na bahay?
e ung blueprint ba pwede ka umupo sa upuan na naka drawing dun sa blueprint mo?

kahit bali baliktarin mo ako di mo ako mapapaikot gusto mo mag laro? edi sige dami mo ng ekis dagdagan mo pa. ahahaha

 

[JackFrost10]

wow used in real life tignan mo ung link mo game nga eh.

View attachment 541690


wag mo sabihin na fact ang game theory na baliw kana pati game sinasali mo dito kung di ka abnormal.
ang bottom line kahit anong mangyari mali ka sa pinag sasabi mo invalid na lahat ng sasabihin mo pero sige i'll entertain you para ilabas kung paano represent ng atheist ang kanilang logic.

parang sabi mo blueprint daw totoo na bahay?
e ung blueprint ba pwede ka umupo sa upuan na naka drawing dun sa blueprint mo?

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <---- wala na usapang kalye na haha.

ayan na lumabas na naman ung strategy mo hahaha, mag basa ka ng maayus.

ayan na ang feeling right strategy, mag copy/paste ka nlg ng wiki page. out na ako hahaha lumabas na ang sabi-mo-justsu baka kng anu pang sabihin mo na sinabi ko hahaha.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. <---- wala na usapang kalye na haha.

ayan na lumabas na naman ung strategy mo hahaha, mag basa ka ng maayus.

ayan na ang feeling right strategy, mag copy/paste ka nlg ng wiki page. out na ako hahaha lumabas na ang sabi-mo-justsu baka kng anu pang sabihin mo na sinabi ko hahaha.

lol, di ko strategy that's just me telling the truth that you are indeed a con individual that tries to manipulate information to align to what you believe pero sorry kung gagamit ka ng factual evidence galing sa internet pag nag sisinungaling ka mahuhuli at mabubuking ka sa hule.

after all you are a liar who tries to think you can outsmart people but not me. so spread your lying else where.
kung pag kakalat mo ung athiest religion mo you need to be better next time.


Game Theory
REVIEWED BY You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Updated May 30, 2018
What is Game Theory


Game theory is a framework for hypothetical social situations among competing players. In some respects, game theory is the science of strategy, or at least the optimal decision-making of independent and competing actors in a strategic setting. The key pioneers of game theory were mathematicians John von Neumann and John Nash, as well as economist Oskar Morgenstern.

hypothetical as in hypothesis. mag basa ka ng mga ni-nilink mo. moron

 

[Mjlove]

t@nga ka talaga alam mo ung god of spinoza? lol. wag ka nga ang bo bo mong kausap lumalabas na kat@ngahan mo mag research ka muna ng maayos ang bo-bo mo.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. -michio kaku on god of spinoza


In any event, when asked about God, Kaku is likely to quote Einstein’s suggestion that there are two types of god: “One god is a personal god, the god that you pray to, the god that smites the Philistines, the god that walks on water. That’s the first god. But there’s another god, and that’s the god of Spinoza. That’s the god of beauty, harmony, simplicity.”

bo bo mo wag ka mag reply dito puro katangahan sinasabi mo.
mag lalagay ka lang ng quote kulang pa kaya di na ako nag tataka na baka may kulang rin sa utak mo.

Wahahaha alam mo boy andami mong argument saakin na mga palpak

How can i deny personal god it's more one who cares about it
wahaha wala ka talagang alam hahahaha
beauty, harmony, simplicity ? That's nature wahahaha pano ako titigil eyy hindi ka nga nanalo ng kahit isang argument sa akin

At gusto ko yung ka stupidohan mo subrang nakakatawa

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

Wahahaha alam mo boy andami mong argument saakin na mga palpak

How can i deny personal god it's more one who cares about it
wahaha wala ka talagang alam hahahaha
beauty, harmony, simplicity ? That's nature wahahaha pano ako titigil eyy hindi ka nga nanalo ng kahit isang argument sa akin

At gusto ko yung ka stupidohan mo subrang nakakatawa

ito para sa utak mong ipis ahaha

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. -michio kaku god is likely a great mathematician.


Spinozism
Spinozism (also spelled Spinozaism) is the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. system of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. that defines "You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now." as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

In a letter to You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. not You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

edi pag naging diyos pala ang nature tatangapin mo na diyos ang nature kung di ka rin bob0 at walang utak. ahahah bob0 to the max ka talaga kaya di ako nag tataka na athiest ka kase laki mong bob0 sabi ko sayo mag research ka. dagdagan mo pa ung mga records mo ng katangahan dito para mas lalong mukang t@nga tingin sa inyong religion atheism. natatawa ako pag may nag basa dito halatang nag t-troll ka kaso troll na bob0 pag t-troll mo kaya nagiging comic relief ka pag nag rereply ka ng kabobohan mo. ahahaha.

 

[sanskuro]

Face Palm I was amazed how many things are you still doesn't know

Alam mo walang kwenta ang pinagsasabi mo seems like wala kana atang hiya immune kana sa pagiging naive dahil wala nang pumapasok na knowledge ata sayo buti pa tumigil kana sa mga pinagsasabi mo baka mahawa pa ako sa kawalang alam mo

Yung dna mutation ay palaging nangyayari ang patunay nyan iba2 ang physicality ng mga tao dahil mismo yan sa dna mutation or genetic mutation

Papupuntahin mo pa ako sa page niya ano mapapala ko sa isang delusional na tao mga kagaya nyo lang ang maloloko niya

Okay pag usapan natin ang mga scientific base na nakasulat sa Bible ano naman kung meron nyan still that doesn't prove God's existence

Dahil kung ganyan ang logic mo well Quran alsobcontains many scientific facts which are supported by modern findings..

So it means Allah is real ? Hahaha

Tama ka sa mutation pero its not evolution. ako naive napakadaling sabigin ng taong walang pangunawa sa kapwa tao. Napakadaling savihin na delusional si Bro. Eli napakatindi nyan wala kang mapapala ay talaga dahil butata ka sa kanya.Kung talagang totoong delusional prove it to him at pagnapatunayan mong siyay mali sa yo na suporta ko 100%. Walang akong pakialam kay Allah dahil hindi ako muslim. Tungkol sa evolution wag mong lahatin na naniniwala ang lahat ng scientist dyan. Naparaming scientist pa rin ang naniniwala sa diyos kahit tanungin mo pa si Google. And read this You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Warning nagpapalitan tayo ng kurokuro at hindi ko hinahamak ang pagkatao mo kung gusto mo talaga itodo muna kung masasabi mo sa kin gusto mo foul words tungkol sa kin sabihin mo na.Ayan lang si report button.

 

[Mjlove]

ito para sa utak mong ipis ahaha

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. -michio kaku god is likely a great mathematician.


Spinozism
Spinozism (also spelled Spinozaism) is the You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. system of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. that defines "You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now." as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

In a letter to You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. For Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. and You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world. According to German philosopher You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., when Spinoza wrote "Deus sive Natura" ("God or Nature") Spinoza meant God was You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now. not You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now., that is, "a dynamic nature in action, growing and changing, not a passive or static thing."

edi pag naging diyos pala ang nature tatangapin mo na diyos ang nature kung di ka rin bob0 at walang utak. ahahah bob0 to the max ka talaga kaya di ako nag tataka na athiest ka kase laki mong bob0 sabi ko sayo mag research ka. dagdagan mo pa ung mga records mo ng katangahan dito para mas lalong mukang t@nga tingin sa inyong religion atheism. natatawa ako pag may nag basa dito halatang nag t-troll ka kaso troll na bob0 pag t-troll mo kaya nagiging comic relief ka pag nag rereply ka ng kabobohan mo. ahahaha.

So your logic stated that it depends on how you defined something , what if I'll defined you as an idiot is that valid ?

So valid pala ang opinion ? Well I defined nature as not God and you can't prove me wrong because that's how I define it

Wahahaha
Men seems like logic don't work well with you sana man lang mag aral ka kung paano mag work ang logic haha

Troll ikaw tong kung ano2x lang ang sinasabi ni mga tanong mo sinagot ko lahat when at first ako yung nag tatanong

Mali kana naman ulit men walang katapusan na ata to ten zero na standing natin

 

[sanskuro]

Okay nag kamali ako diyan nalimotan kong ilagay ang accepted by most astronomical community
Ang ibig kung sabihin accepted bilang scientific theory

Anong saan yung test marunong kabang mag basa o baka hindi mo alam ano ang scientific methods wahahahaha nakaka tawa yung taong pa ulit ulit mong natusta tas sasabihan ka ng mang mang wahahaha alam mo gusto ko yan ulitin mo nga kasi sa sinasabi mong yan pawang patama ata sayo

Scientific method :
A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses

What may mga magandang aral therefore yung dalawang yan deserving na pwedi maging totoo tsk tsk tsk

Men ano ba na kain mo kulang ba sa sustansya ulam mo kanina ?

Yung simulation theory naman dalawang bisis ko palang panood yan hindi ko pa matandaan yung mga ditalyi matagal na kasi akong hindi sumisilip ng ganyan mga 2016 ata yung last sa nabasa ko hypothesis ata yan at magka iba ang scientific theory sa hypothesis hmmm no comment muna ako dyan

Anyway kung sakaling kaya mong ma disprove ang big bang theory sabihan mo lang ako ha
Hahahaha

Hehehe nahuli ka don.

 

[Lets-All-Love-Lain]

So your logic stated that it depends on how you defined something , what if I'll defined you as an idiot is that valid ?

So valid pala ang opinion ? Well I defined nature as not God and you can't prove me wrong because that's how I define it

Wahahaha
Men seems like logic don't work well with you sana man lang mag aral ka kung paano mag work ang logic haha

Troll ikaw tong kung ano2x lang ang sinasabi ni mga tanong mo sinagot ko lahat when at first ako yung nag tatanong

Mali kana naman ulit men walang katapusan na ata to ten zero na standing natin

di ganon ang logic kaya pala ganyan ka mag isip parang may sira sa utak ahaha ikaw din nag sabi na may sarili kang definition sa mga bagay. edi pagsabihin pag lahat ng tao sinasabi na lapis ang isang lapis tatawagin mo parin tong sapatos kung di ka mongoloid ahaha. sige pakita mo ung logic mo payaso ka talaga ahaha.

 

[Mjlove]

Tama ka sa mutation pero its not evolution. ako naive napakadaling sabigin ng taong walang pangunawa sa kapwa tao. Napakadaling savihin na delusional si Bro. Eli napakatindi nyan wala kang mapapala ay talaga dahil butata ka sa kanya.Kung talagang totoong delusional prove it to him at pagnapatunayan mong siyay mali sa yo na suporta ko 100%. Walang akong pakialam kay Allah dahil hindi ako muslim. Tungkol sa evolution wag mong lahatin na naniniwala ang lahat ng scientist dyan. Naparaming scientist pa rin ang naniniwala sa diyos kahit tanungin mo pa si Google. And read this You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.. Warning nagpapalitan tayo ng kurokuro at hindi ko hinahamak ang pagkatao mo kung gusto mo talaga itodo muna kung masasabi mo sa kin gusto mo foul words tungkol sa kin sabihin mo na.Ayan lang si report button.

Men the fact na sinabi nya na galing ang tao sa unggoy at hindi nababago ang dna
Ano paba ang kailangan ko nakita ko na na mali siya

At natural hindi nya tatanggapin kahit conclusion na ang natural selection at common descent

At sa sinabi mo palang na hindi component ng evolution ang genetic mutation mali kana at ang dami mo ng mali factual tayo dito at tsaka hindi mo pa naintindihan ang logic ko about kay Allah

Men hindu factual ang opinion para malaman mo

Faith also is not valid hindi yan fact
Pano ko ipag papatuloy to hindi mo naiintindihan lahat ng sinasabi ko at pa ikot ikot na tayo dito

Punta ka sa science vs. Religion mag toos tayo doon para wala ng report2x

 

[sanskuro]

Men the fact na sinabi nya na galing ang tao sa unggoy at hindi nababago ang dna
Ano paba ang kailangan ko nakita ko na na mali siya

At natural hindi nya tatanggapin kahit conclusion na ang natural selection at common descent

At sa sinabi mo palang na hindi component ng evolution ang genetic mutation mali kana at ang dami mo ng mali factual tayo dito at tsaka hindi mo pa naintindihan ang logic ko about kay Allah

Men hindu factual ang opinion para malaman mo

Faith also is not valid hindi yan fact
Pano ko ipag papatuloy to hindi mo naiintindihan lahat ng sinasabi ko at pa ikot ikot na tayo dito

Punta ka sa science vs. Religion mag toos tayo doon para wala ng report2x

Pakibasa muna ang link bago ka magcomment. Di na kailangan magpunta sa SvsR nandito na ang katuos mo si Loveandlain. Hoy napanood kuna kaya si Bro.Eli na kadebate ang isang atheist ang topic nila eh evolution di mo ba siya gagayahin para makabawi naman kayo kay soriano.

 

[sanskuro]

di ganon ang logic kaya pala ganyan ka mag isip parang may sira sa utak ahaha ikaw din nag sabi na may sarili kang definition sa mga bagay. edi pagsabihin pag lahat ng tao sinasabi na lapis ang isang lapis tatawagin mo parin tong sapatos kung di ka mongoloid ahaha. sige pakita mo ung logic mo payaso ka talaga ahaha.

Grabe ang galing tuloy mulang yan nakasuporta ako