That answers what it does. Why isn't explained yet. We call the force "inertia" but we don't know why it acts the way it does.well of course you can. if an object is moving, it would not stop moving, unless something stops it.
That answers what it does. Why isn't explained yet. We call the force "inertia" but we don't know why it acts the way it does.well of course you can. if an object is moving, it would not stop moving, unless something stops it.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
Energy conservation. Without a force (such as friction) to cause a change in energy, no kinetic energy is lost or gained, and so the object must continue on its course.
You just explained WHAT inertia is but not WHY it is.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
No, that's a why. Inertia is the property that says that velocity remains unchanged unless a net force acts on the object. Energy conservation is why this happens.
*shakes head*
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
Just 'cause you can't take me knowing stuffAnyway, the question you should really be asking is why energy is conserved in the first place.
One could argue asking that is by association asking why inertia works.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
Except it isn't. Chain of whys, my man. Anyway, the reason for that is... Well, I don't know. I'm not sure if anyone knows.
To stop The Editor from railing on this "tomato tomahto" bit, I'm gonna take this moment to bitch about Christians. I talked to a Christian friend I haven't chatted with in ages. First thing he did was vent on me about his relationship issues with friends and stuff, and I listened and added comments every so often until he finally stopped. Now previously he'd always be trying to pull me back to Christianity and he was impressed when I told him just how much I had studied religion. When I went to tell him that most religions are based in astrology (which is glaringly obvious) he informed me that they were not and that he took a semester of world religion so he would know. After all, he went to COLLEGE. I then asked about religious symbolism and he said symbolism is by and large meaningless as different symbols have different meanings to different people. I argued the point and said not only does symbolism help you to trace the roots of a religion but it allows you to understand intents and various meanings in otherwise vague references. He seemed to disagree so I thought an example was necessary so I tried to make one with the Jesus fish. After mentioning that he said I was just gonna "spew more shit" and blocked me. This guy would rattle on for hours about his beliefs and what he thinks is right but if I have a different stance on the subject he doesn't wanna hear it. Fucking closed minded religious dickhead. This isn't the first time either I can hardly think of any Christian that will give me a minute of their time when I try to explain what I've researched but oh god they will yack my ear off about jebuz. Yeah I know this is intolerant of me but if trying to hold ignorant people to anything but their own double standard is intolerant then give me a fucking cross to burn.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
I intend to invite Jehovah's witnesses into my home and then beat them to death with logic over a cup of tea. That is how you deal with religion.
RedCheetah... He had to block you. Christianity is based on faith. Logic shakes the faith the religion is founded on. If he listened to your hard logic his world may shatter.
For an even moderately intelligent person it is very hard to face logical facts and still believe that a savior was born of a virgin, then died, was zombiefied three days later and ascended to heaven.
The best way to get on with christians is not to rock the boat, baby. Trust me, I know, my dad was a preacher.
In RS we've been covering this sort of thing, and most belief is ultimately independent of logical arguments, and in fact comes from personal experience. Logic can't touch these people; all it can do is protect you from them. After all, they know what they felt, right?
Yes god forbid I try to approach them with logic and sense. I refuse to walk on eggshells around these people.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
from cracked.com
http://www.cracked.com/article_15759...-agree-on.html
10 things christians & atheists can & must agree on
1. You Can Do Terrible Things in the Name of Either One
2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying
3. In Everyday Life, You're Not That Different
4. There Are Good People on Both Sides
5. Your Point of View is Legitimately Offensive to Them
6. We Tend to Exaggerate About the Other Guy
7. We Tend to Exaggerate About Ourselves, Too
8. Focusing on Negative Examples Makes You Stupid
9. Both Sides Have Brought Good to the Table
10. You'll Never Harass the Other Side Out of Existence
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
You seem to be taking what I'm saying out of context. I'm not pro-atheist or anti-religion, I just hate Christians.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
I disagree with point one. You cannot do terrible things in the name of atheism, as there is no higher purpose to appeal too.
Have you read the article?
We're putting aside the question of which belief system has killed more people by percentage of population, or whether a hypothetical world without religion would have seen fewer or more genocides than ours. We're not going to open a spreadsheet and try to count which belief system manufactures more murderous sociopaths per capita.
All I need from you is agreement that it's entirely possible for either an atheist or theist world to devolve into a screaming murder festival. The religious leader sends his people into battle because he thinks God commanded it, the Stalins and Maos of the world do the same because they see their people as nothing more than meaty fuel to be ground up to feed the machinery of The State. In both cases, the people are equally dead.
Yeah, yeah, I know the Christians are saying that the guy who fights an unjust or needless war is violating God's law, and thus isn't a good Christian. Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
But for this project, All we need to agree on is this: it happens in both cases. And if the opposing belief system vanished tomorrow, war and bloodshed and terror would still take place.
And can we further admit it's actually physically impossible to calculate whether, if your side had its way, the volume of terrible things happening would go up, or down, or stay the same? I know you have an opinion on that, and I can guess what it is. But we don't know, and can't state it like it's fact. Right?
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
Corruption of the belief system? In atheism? Hell no. The belief system in atheism is one sentence long: I do not believe there is a God. It is impossible to misinterpret this in any way. What Stalin did was not due to a misunderstanding or corruption of atheistic principles; it was due to his callous disregard for human life and his (admittedly justifiable) paranoia. He didn't kill people because of atheism: he killed people to protect himself.Meanwhile, the atheists are saying that Stalin was merely bloodthirsty, separate and apart from his disbelief in a higher power. Both believe, then, that it is a corruption of their belief system that allows unjust slaughter to happen.
Christianity, unfortunately, doesn't have this escape, and that's all down to the Crusades.
He killed people for having religion!
I live. I love. I kill. I catch Pokemons. I am content.
No, he killed people for disagreeing with him. Difference.
Neither do Buddhists.
Agnostics aren't all indecisive boobs we do have a number of people who simply reject the major world religions while believing that there is something else out there.
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Time Enough For Love, by Robert Heinlein
That doesn't make you an agnostic, it makes you a theist.
Actually, it does.Originally Posted by The Editor
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=athiest&gwp=13
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
http://www.answers.com/agnostic?ff=1
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
