Physics for HVAC&R Techs

[DTLarca]

I'm going to be writing a series of articles on specifically HVAC&R physics that might last 12 months, maybe 24 or maybe even beyond 36 months. I will write the first one, the intro, this Friday. The idea is that by the end of the series any level 3, 4 or 5 tech who says he/she does not understand all the physics and formula used in HVAC&R will no longer have any valid excuse. No lecturer should ever after say they have no easy to understand material to teach thermodynamics (including PH charts and Psychrometrics) or fluid dynamics etc with/from.

<Moderators remove if necessary>
The articles will be published in the ACR Today magazine - I make no money out of writing these articles - I just get to enjoy a few more hours a month thinking :)
</Moderators remove if necessary>

Does anybody have any ideas about what of physics they would like to read about?

Is physics easy but boring? Is it interesting but too difficult? Or are there other opinions/perceptions?

[Gary]

'How things work' is interesting... 'physics' is boring. Figuring it out is interesting. Calculation is boring. Understanding it is interesting. Memorizing it is boring. Interesting is not too difficult, boring is too difficult.

[DTLarca]

'How things work' is interesting... 'physics' is boring. Figuring it out is interesting. Calculation is boring. Understanding it is interesting. Memorizing it is boring. Interesting is not too difficult, boring is too difficult.

I like it - that is the sort of approach I am looking to take - short little essays with diagrams that illustrate the real field life events of a Technician but from a view that invokes a sort of "Damn - so that's how it goes - that's so easy but also so useful - I could have worked that out myself - well - I'll work the next one out myself" :)

I might copy and paste your words into the article Gary - crediting you and where you said it of course :)

[nevgee]

'How things work' is interesting... 'physics' is boring. Figuring it out is interesting. Calculation is boring. Understanding it is interesting. Memorizing it is boring. Interesting is not too difficult, boring is too difficult.

Gary does have a point here, however defining it a different way, I notice people clam up at the thought of such subjects . . "physics" .... algebra .... etc

They say "I don't do algebra .... can't do math" but the reality is so not true. When it's pointed out they do algebra every waking moment, and they see "physics" in action all the time but just don't realise it. It's just that they've never seen the connections. Bringing the connections between simple analogy to the compex technical description is one of those routes of understanding and exploration that enlivens the mind.

And so another way forward.

[Gary]

Telling someone that frog legs tastes like chicken is meaningless to someone who has never tasted chicken. He can memorize the phrase, but he doesn't understand it. Then moving on to explain the subtle differences in flavor has him completely lost. Each bit of knowledge must be linked to previously held knowledge, which is ultimately linked to sensorial input or there is no learning and no teaching, there is only preaching to the choir.

You may find this more difficult than you imagine. The opening post in my "Refrigeration 101" thread would be an example of my feeble attempt to begin with sensorial input and then progress step-by-step to the more complex.

http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19701

[nevgee]

Telling someone that frog legs tastes like chicken is meaningless to someone who has never tasted chicken. . . . . . . You may find this more difficult than you imagine. The opening post in my "Refrigeration 101" thread would be an example of my feeble attempt to begin with sensorial input and then progress step-by-step to the more complex.




You're quite right ..... hence my point about the day to day analogy, it's essential to bring the connections to the known knowledge then building the connections by creating more of the links.

It's just a mental jigsaw really, identify the colours, join them up to create a picture with supporting over views.

Never the less it's often very interesting to be able to read or hear someone else's approach in describing a process or technical feature. There are often little gems in there that hadn't been considered previously.

[desA]

The shape of the fabric of space-time & its effect on RHVAC systems, would be of interest. You may wish to cover that topic in your latter articles - as required.

Of practical interest:
1. 2nd law of thermodynamics;
2. Various refrigeration cycles & associated log(p)-h, T-s diagrams etc.;
3. Use of Coolpack & other process simulation tools.

[DTLarca]

You're quite right ..... hence my point about the day to day analogy, it's essential to bring the connections to the known knowledge then building the connections by creating more of the links.

It's just a mental jigsaw really, identify the colours, join them up to create a picture with supporting over views.

Never the less it's often very interesting to be able to read or hear someone else's approach in describing a process or technical feature. There are often little gems in there that hadn't been considered previously.

Just to add to yours and Gary's comments...

John Locke's Tabula Rasa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

David Hume's "Impressions versus Ideas" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Man can predict nothing about the natural world by merely rational means. Empiricism wins every time.

The rationalists say that the sun orbits the earth, that heavy stones fall faster than light stones, that the planets have to orbit in perfect circles, that if you fire one electron at a time at a double split you will have no interference patterns etc etc. But the empiricists find, when they test these thesis experimentally, that the arguments and evidence always point to something quite clearly the opposite of common sense.

Two of Socrates dialogues called Meno and Theaetatus are devoted to the theory of knowledge (Epistemology)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/meno.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/theaetet.htm

In the Meno Socrates explains that people are able to work many things out for themselves but only if they experiment and never if they just sits and thinks alone. He gives the example of a square having it's sides or peripheral dimensions being doubled - he is explaining to a slave boy how it works but not by telling the slave - instead he asks the slave to calculate the new surface area if the dimensions are doubled. The slave replies quickly that of course it is common sense that the area will also double. Then Socrates says lets test your hypothesis experimentally at which stage the slave boy quickly sees his mistake and goes on to suggest an alternate hypothesis for Socrates.

Nothing can ever be known for certain - nothing at all. Nothing can be known ever at all except through at least one of the senses. Our senses deceive us more often than they inform us - so we have a duty to throw away all thoughts and theories that cannot thoroughly be supported by hard solid evidence.

[nevgee]

Just to add to yours and Gary's comments...

John Locke's Tabula Rasa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa

David Hume's "Impressions versus Ideas" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume

Man can predict nothing about the natural world by merely rational means. Empiricism wins every time.

The rationalists say that the sun orbits the earth, that heavy stones fall faster than light stones, that the planets have to orbit in perfect circles, that if you fire one electron at a time at a double split you will have no interference patterns etc etc. But the empiricists find, when they test these thesis experimentally, that the arguments and evidence always point to something quite clearly the opposite of common sense.

Two of Socrates dialogues called Meno and Theaetatus are devoted to the theory of knowledge (Epistemology)

http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/meno.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/theaetet.htm

In the Meno Socrates explains that people are able to work many things out for themselves but only if they experiment and never if they just sits and thinks alone. He gives the example of a square having it's sides or peripheral dimensions being doubled - he is explaining to a slave boy how it works but not by telling the slave - instead he asks the slave to calculate the new surface area if the dimensions are doubled. The slave replies quickly that of course it is common sense that the area will also double. Then Socrates says lets test your hypothesis experimentally at which stage the slave boy quickly sees his mistake and goes on to suggest an alternate hypothesis for Socrates.

Nothing can ever be known for certain - nothing at all. Nothing can be known ever at all except through at least one of the senses. Our senses deceive us more often than they inform us - so we have a duty to throw away all thoughts and theories that cannot thoroughly be supported by hard solid evidence.

Empirically, I recon that was a sort of an affirming comment ;)

[DTLarca]

Empirically, I reckon that was a sort of an affirming comment ;)

Indeed, each concept (universal) must be founded upon an already agreed, by empirical means, concept. No causal concepts can be known a priori.

Each concept (principle) must be presented in a form tech's are familiar with.

[Aik]

Empirically, I recon that was a sort of an affirming comment ;)

May be you want to process theory with some formulas...
http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25601

[DTLarca]

May be you want to process theory with some formulas...
http://www.refrigeration-engineer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25601

What I imagine happening here is the combination of impulse (rate of change of momentum) and vapour compression as in a shock absorber.

F = dP/dt (Force = rate of change of momentum)

dP = m dv (Change in momentum = mass (density) x change in velocity)

work to slow liquid = kJ = s dp/dt (Distance x force)

work to compress vapour in Tee = PV (y/y-1)[(P1/P2)^((y-1)/1) - 1]

There has to be enough vapour in the Tee such all the kinetic energy in the liquid line is absorbed in the compression of the vapour in the Tee top.

All this would only be covered in perhaps the second or third year of articles and it might take 2 or 3 articles to draw out in layman's terms all the principles here.

[desA]

Use the same theory as used for water pipelines. It's generally well covered in hydraulics theory literature at most technical colleges, or universities.

Nice idea, by-the-way. Would have suspected that the height & diameter of the device would be pretty important, though.

[DTLarca]

The shape of the fabric of space-time & its effect on RHVAC systems, would be of interest. You may wish to cover that topic in your latter articles - as required.

Of practical interest:
1. 2nd law of thermodynamics;
2. Various refrigeration cycles & associated log(p)-h, T-s diagrams etc.;
3. Use of Coolpack & other process simulation tools.


Oh yes - maybe not so much from coolpack, not sure yet, but there are so many "but why?" questions that are asked by students when it comes to the likes of PH charts - so the articles will be looking at many of those.


Use the same theory as used for water pipelines. It's generally well covered in hydraulics theory literature at most technical colleges, or universities.

Nice idea, by-the-way. Would have suspected that the height & diameter of the device would be pretty important, though.

Height and diameter? Surely not :) - Pascals Barrel comes to mind :D

[DTLarca]

Gary does have a point here, however defining it a different way, I notice people clam up at the thought of such subjects . . "physics" .... algebra .... etc

They say "I don't do algebra .... can't do math" but the reality is so not true. When it's pointed out they do algebra every waking moment, and they see "physics" in action all the time but just don't realise it. It's just that they've never seen the connections. Bringing the connections between simple analogy to the complex technical description is one of those routes of understanding and exploration that enlivens the mind.

And so another way forward.

People might "see" that there is "physics" all around them but people don't automatically see physics as in what actually happens all around them.

What is an enlightened person? Perhaps the best definition of an enlightened person is someone who has read "The Outlines of Skepticism" by Sextus Empiricus - the book that not just freed Europe from the tyranny of religion but because of this Europeans rediscovered Greek science - Galileo rediscovered Epicurus (all weights fall at the same speed in a vacuum) and Newton/Leibniz brought back to life Archimedes calculus. Darwin was accused of simply paraphrasing Epicurus's 3rd century BC theory of evolution. It's fascinating stuff reading how Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth already in about 270BC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

All of this and much more Greek science was lost at the utter collapse of European civilisations when the nonsense of monotheistic religions came into place. The dark ages were indeed very dark.

But, after Galileo, an enlightened person was one who not only learned that all religiously motivated metaphysics were logically contradictory but also understood such things as that throwing an apple twice as hard was not the same thing as twice as fast and that throwing an apple twice as fast did not carry it twice as far - in other words an enlightened person was one who realised that common sense had only ever brought ignorance and misery and that is why the Greeks, before but especially Socrates, battled against it. Because common sense is false and leads to amplified falsities, it is what governments govern nations with - one fools a nation by constantly appealing to common sense - while in fact doing something very different.

But a mind is enlivened, as you say, when taking the time to understand especially energy. If you understand energy you immediately understand for instance the difference between throwing a ball twice as hard and twice as fast. I have not yet spoken to a person who understands energy - and I have spoken to many degreed engineers. They use physics like I use a hammer - they cannot build tools out of physics like I cannot build my own hammers (metallurgy).

[desA]

Height and diameter? Surely not :) - Pascals Barrel comes to mind :D

You may want to elaborate further.

There is a difference between steady, or quasi-steady processes, & time-variant processes. Water hammer is a wave phenomenon & is therefore time-variant.

Management methods for each may be different, hence the diameter/height discussion. This can interrupt wave timing... :)

[mad fridgie]

When doing this type of article/training you need to start at the very beginning with each level reinforcing the previous level.
Examples; Already you are talking about P H diagrams, what is P or H, why do P and H change, then after clearly explaining apply to a common refrigeration (AC) system which is used all the way through.

[Aik]

Use the same theory as used for water pipelines. It's generally well covered in hydraulics theory literature at most technical colleges, or universities.

About theory I have the same opinion...


Nice idea, by-the-way. Would have suspected that the height & diameter of the device would be pretty important, though.
I have some interesting information:
-height of Tee is about 3-5 diameters of tube.
- distance between solenoid and Tee is about 5-7 diameters of tube.
Also I suppose that tube plug on Tee must be spherical...
It's data without theory, I prefer understand in detail...

[Peter_1]

I've written for school in Dutch the beginning of a manual/course starting from scratch.

I entirely explain the log p/h starting from water. Latent heat principle: how many heat there must be removed to freeze water, how many water must be removed to vaporize water....steady boiling and freezing temperature at at certain pressure.
Water boils at 100°C at 10313 Pa, at the Mount everest it boils at 80°C (forgot exact figures), in an old fashioned steampot on 2 bar at 120°C. These are figures mot understand and knows or have heard of.
Give them saturated tables of water and explain all the columns.
Explaining what saturated tables are.
Then give them empty log paper and they then have to make the 2 axis on it, P and h.
Then let them point 20 points out of the table and they then draw the 'bubble' on the log p/h.
Explaining the other way of visualizing the same tables in a log /h bubble.
Then make a cooling chamber with the water, with ice,.. the figures coming out of the book from Dossat.
The the switch to R134a and again making a cooling plant exactly the way Dossat is describing it. I like Roy's approach of this.
And so on.

[DTLarca]

You may want to elaborate further.

There is a difference between steady, or quasi-steady processes, & time-variant processes. Water hammer is a wave phenomenon & is therefore time-variant.

Management methods for each may be different, hence the diameter/height discussion. This can interrupt wave timing... :)

I was being a little pedantic.

The diameter would not matter and nor would the length though only so long as you have sufficient trapped vapour volume in the vertical stub. But the stub could be say 3/8" on a 1-1/8" liquid line so long as its height creates sufficient compressible vapour. So its the volume of the stub and its ability to retain vapour that matters only.

The Tee'd stub, for instance, would be of no use if it was orientated downward from the pipe.

The liquid should be flowing from where above it there is vapour - for this reason we do not need to worry about the sound-wave properties causing impulse damage back up stream at the other end.

[DTLarca]

I've written for school in Dutch the beginning of a manual/course starting from scratch.

I entirely explain the log p/h starting from water. Latent heat principle: how many heat there must be removed to freeze water, how many water must be removed to vaporize water....steady boiling and freezing temperature at at certain pressure.
Water boils at 100°C at 10313 Pa, at the Mount everest it boils at 80°C (forgot exact figures), in an old fashioned steampot on 2 bar at 120°C. These are figures mot understand and knows or have heard of.
Give them saturated tables of water and explain all the columns.
Explaining what saturated tables are.
Then give them empty log paper and they then have to make the 2 axis on it, P and h.
Then let them point 20 points out of the table and they then draw the 'bubble' on the log p/h.
Explaining the other way of visualizing the same tables in a log /h bubble.
Then make a cooling chamber with the water, with ice,.. the figures coming out of the book from Dossat.
The the switch to R134a and again making a cooling plant exactly the way Dossat is describing it. I like Roy's approach of this.
And so on.

Though as Mad Fridgie implies - we are already very advanced by the time we get to that level if our aim is to impart a true and full unforgettable understanding - we still then get questions such as "what is pressure?" and "why do we refer to pressure as energy?" And "if two different rigidly sealed containers each hold a different gas but each of equal volume and temperature do they have the same kJ as in the same kJ/m³ but not the same kJ/kg?" Or then "Why do different gases have different specific heat capacities but all have the same thermal coefficient of expansion?".

[desA]

I was being a little pedantic.

The diameter would not matter and nor would the length though only so long as you have sufficient trapped vapour volume in the vertical stub. But the stub could be say 3/8" on a 1-1/8" liquid line so long as its height creates sufficient compressible vapour. So its the volume of the stub and its ability to retain vapour that matters only.

The Tee'd stub, for instance, would be of no use if it was orientated downward from the pipe.

The liquid should be flowing from where above it there is vapour - for this reason we do not need to worry about the sound-wave properties causing impulse damage back up stream at the other end.

I would respectfully disagree.

There will be two potential mechanisms at work here:
1. Physical compression of a vapour located towards top of vertical tube (interesting for a RHVAC circuit);
2. Tube length tuned to disrupt water-hammer frequency. (Wave phenomenon, remember).

;)

[DTLarca]

I would respectfully disagree.

There will be two potential mechanisms at work here:
1. Physical compression of a vapour located towards top of vertical tube (interesting for a RHVAC circuit);
2. Tube length tuned to disrupt water-hammer frequency. (Wave phenomenon, remember).

;)

On point 2 we would be looking to affect wave interference patterns so that the sound wave from the tee section cancels that from the solenoid valve in which case the length and diameter would be important - the length related to the speed of sound for the liquid and the diameter to the wave energy required to interfere with that coming back from the solenoid valve. The wrong length could in fact double the wave energy going back up the liquid line. But this sort of arrangement is not relevant to vapour free piping system that are all liquid with no vapour area back behind the liquid up in the condenser. It depends, I guess, on whether the purpose of the Tee is to reduce the noise of liquid hammer or the mechanical damaging forces experienced by the solenoid.

[mad fridgie]

Though as Mad Fridgie implies - we are already very advanced by the time we get to that level if our aim is to impart a true and full unforgettable understanding - we still then get questions such as "what is pressure?" and "why do we refer to pressure as energy?" And "if two different rigidly sealed containers each hold a different gas but each of equal volume and temperature do they have the same kJ as in the same kJ/m³ but not the same kJ/kg?" Or then "Why do different gases have different specific heat capacities but all have the same thermal coefficient of expansion?".
I think !!!!!!!!!!!?????? that you should undertake a sample, we can then look at your method or appraoch and comment on this side more, than the particular data. You use "note" statements to show common beliefs, or used terms,

[desA]

On point 2 we would be looking to affect wave interference patterns so that the sound wave from the tee section cancels that from the solenoid valve in which case the length and diameter would be important - the length related to the speed of sound for the liquid and the diameter to the wave energy required to interfere with that coming back from the solenoid valve. The wrong length could in fact double the wave energy going back up the liquid line. But this sort of arrangement is not relevant to vapour free piping system that are all liquid with no vapour area back behind the liquid up in the condenser. It depends, I guess, on whether the purpose of the Tee is to reduce the noise of liquid hammer or the mechanical damaging forces experienced by the solenoid.

Good. A useful explanation. :D

[DTLarca]

I think !!!!!!!!!!!?????? that you should undertake a sample, we can then look at your method or appraoch and comment on this side more, than the particular data. You use "note" statements to show common beliefs, or used terms,

I have no doubts about my methods - they have been tried numerous times.

I'm wondering what particular topics are commonly misunderstood :)

[mad fridgie]

I have no doubts about my methods - they have been tried numerous times.

I'm wondering what particular topics are commonly misunderstood :)
Yet to be proved, not your knowledge, I will let others "blow you" on that count, but if the reader can not absorb the information, then it does not matter how good your knowledge is.:D

[desA]

I have no doubts about my methods - they have been tried numerous times.

I'm wondering what particular topics are commonly misunderstood :)

Makes me wonder how confident the ancient Greeks were in their knowledge. :D

[DTLarca]

Makes me wonder how confident the ancient Greeks were in their knowledge. :D

The Greeks argued that absolute knowledge is impossible. Socrates said "If you do not know what you are looking for then how do you know where to start looking for it, if you know that you do not know everything then how do you know that nothing will come along sometime and completely overturn your so far "absolutely true" knowledge?"

Sextus Empiricus summed their positions up thus...

When they propose to establish the universal from the particulars by means of induction, they will effect this by a review of either all or some of the particulars. But if they review some, the induction will be insecure, since some of the particulars omitted in the induction may contravene the universal; while if they are to review all, they will be toiling at the impossible, since the particulars are infinite and indefinite.

Epicurus (300BC), who got almost as far as Darwin on the theory explaining why there exists undubitable facts such as that life evolves just that we do not know exactly how it evolves, also explained the following in 300BC:

- The Atom
- The Molecule
- Law of Inertia
- Principle of Universal Natural Law
- Rain Cycle
- Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air
- Light Composed of Particles
- Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose
- Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts
- Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles
- Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines
- Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source
- Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection
- Matter is Mostly Empty Space
- Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles
- Fire is not an Element
- No Center of the Universe
- Other Planetary Systems
- Speed of Light is Finite
- Theory of Relativity
- Quantum Indeterminism
- Brownian Motion

So why were we not on the moon then 400 years later in about 100AD?

Well...

Epicurus developed a system of philosophy and a way of living that claimed many thousands of committed followers all over the ancient Mediterranean world in cooperative communities that lasted for hundreds of years until being closed down by the Christian Church because they were not just atheists but because they we converting thousands of Christians to Epicurianism. Epicureans almost never switched their allegiance to other philosophical systems whereas other schools regularly lost students to the Epicureans. For one, Epicurus did not think it right to put one's possessions into a common fund, as did Pythagoras with all his hundreds of followers - Epicurus thought it a mark of mistrust and if there is mistrust there is no friendship.

Epicurus started studying philosophy (the works of Democritus) when he was 12 and opened his own "academy" when he was 32.

His followers would walk through the streets telling others "Do you want to be happy? Of course you do! Then what's standing in your way? Your happiness is entirely up to you. This has been revealed to us by a man of divine serenity and wisdom who spends his life among us and showed us, by his personal example and by his teaching, the path to redemption from unhappiness.- his name is Epicurus".

The fundamental obstacle to happiness, says Epicurus, is anxiety, no matter how rich or famous you won't be happy if you're anxious to be richer or more famous. No matter how good your health is, you wont be happy if you're anxious about getting sick. You can't be happy in this life if you're worried about a next life. You can't be happy as a human being if you're worried about being punished or victimised by powerful divine beings. But you can be happy if you believe in the four basic truths of Epicureanism:

1) There are no divine beings which threaten us, there is no next life.
2) What we actually need is easy to get, what makes us suffer is easy to put up with.
3) Happiness is having just enough to be moderately comfortable, having a few very good friends to philosophise with.
4) Living an analysed life analysing all of your thoughts for truthfulness and meaning and sharing such analysis with your friends and neighbours.

Science does not know why stuff has mass. Science does not know what causes gravity. Science thus is merely a descriptive discipline - we employ algebra to describe physical phenomena. This then makes physics merely the science of proportions or the language of ratios. This is the first requirement when looking to understand physics - you must be fluent with fractions. If a person does not see how we move from m/s/s to m/s² then they are not going to get any further in physics than understanding, distance, time, weight, velocity, the relation between dimensions of squares and cubes and area and volume and finally conservation of momentum - they will not yet properly be able to understand temperature except to measure it. In the language of fractions this phenomena happens in such and such a proportion relative to that phenomena - increase this one then that one also increases either in direct proportion or by the square or the cube or by pi or by the inverse square or to the base e etc etc but why is, for instance, the gravitational constant what it is and not some other number we just do not know - we cannot explain why for anything in physics we can only ever so far simply describe what happens.

[Gary]

Some things are highly likely. Some things are highly unlikely. And everything else is somewhere in between.

[nevgee]

Some things are highly likely. Some things are highly unlikely. And everything else is somewhere in between.


Be careful now Gary ... "Opinions" ( if they exist) are ( can be ) like blue touch paper .... Oops that may be an opinion .... ;)

[DTLarca]

Be careful now Gary ... "Opinions" are like blue touch paper .... ;)

Gary is pretty much right.

The situation is like this...
Facts can be true or false but arguments can never be true or false - arguments can only have degrees of success or failure but can never be proved right or wrong - only better or worse.

Arguments can never have proofs - only mathematics has proofs. Nothing can prove that the sun will for certain rise again tomorrow but we can prove that the angles in a triangle add up to 180°.

[nevgee]

Well .... I was only playing .... :D however, I am aware the Greeks did their stuff I don't see how writing long comments on the classics and the methodologies applied thereto can be of any help in your quest.

I can see lots of "Tech" people doing a lot of yawning :)

[monkey spanners]

Friend of mine was teaching his apprentice basic physics, went a little like this....

"touch that pipe wayne"

wayne "OUCH!!"

"don't touch that pipe, its hot"

"touch that pipe wayne"

wayne "OUCH!! my fingers stuck!!!"

"thats frost wayne, don't touch that pipe"

Repeat for all the common hazards :D

[nevgee]

Philosophically outlined . . .


Gary is pretty much right.

Facts can be true or false but arguments can never be true or false - arguments can only have degrees of success or failure but can never be proved right or wrong - only better or worse.

.

Empirically tested by Monkey Spanner's mate ...... with the conclusive retort "Ouch!"

I can see how the "Classics" can be applied now. . .I like this edification stuff. Real kool :D

[mikeref]

Monkey S, its human nature to have sticky fingers, i know what your saying but if Wayne were to learn everything by feel, he might be worse for wear. Take the poor old sparkie, he is forbidden to feel his way around an electrical circuit. As we cannot see electricity, we can only observe its effects,so to speak, but the newbe forgets this or does not believe his tutor and tests for himself. BAM!! I'm sure all of us have had a taste of the invisible force at one stage or another,, C'mon, fess up..mike.

[Brian_UK]

Facts can be true or false but arguments can never be true or false - <snip>
Sorry, wrong.

A false Fact is an oxymoron. Facts can only be true.

[stufus]

Physics 101
"Magnetism, as you may recall from physics class, is a
powerful force that causes certain items to be
attracted to refrigerators:p

[DTLarca]

Sorry, wrong.

A false Fact is an oxymoron. Facts can only be true.

Yes, indeed, nicely spotted - very true when considered in that form :)

But what is meant is rather that propositions or assertions of a factual nature are either true or false.

"The light IS on" is an assertion proposing a matter of fact and thus can be either true or false.

"This light has always been on this time of the night when I walk past therefore it will be on again this time tomorrow night when I walk past" is not an assertion proposing a matter of fact but is rather an argument for which it just would not make any sense at all to say that it is either true or false but rather that it is relatively strong or weak.

[mikeref]

'How things work' is interesting... 'physics' is boring. Figuring it out is interesting. Calculation is boring. Understanding it is interesting. Memorizing it is boring. Interesting is not too difficult, boring is too difficult.
Gary, i wish i had thought of thoes words for my signature. How about classrooms are boring in longwinded sessions but practical experience goes all too fast. Textbooks are boring when various examples do not include suitable illustrations to break up the endless sentences. Also, skimming over important basics like Q=MC deltaT, then using change in temperature in degrees K but later it changes to degrees C, where did that come from? 5/9(f-32)=degreeF to degreesC, do we need to have that crammed in as well, Maybe? Going out on a limb here(pointing to branch bending), the average human retains around 10% of information provided in a so called lecture so its necessary to reinforce information provided.. mike.

[desA]

The more you learn, the more you realize how little you know.

It takes a certain amount of learning to realize how ignorant you really are.

:)

[Gary]

When you know all the answers, that means you don't know all the questions.

[Peter_1]

Well, well ,w ell, what a philosophic thread this has become.
But....nice to read.

[buddy]

Well, well ,w ell, what a philosophic thread this has become.
But....nice to read.

Dont forget Pragmatism.


Definition - The doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value.

[DTLarca]

Dont forget Pragmatism.


Definition - The doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge and meaning and value.


Pragmatism is one ism in answer to the problem of the seeming impossibility of acquiring certain knowledge. There are quite a number of ism's offered in answer. But all have both Pro's and Con's and to me the best seems to be Coherentism operating under the roof of contextualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

[buddy]

[QUOTE=DTLarca;216235].
Epicurus (300BC), who got almost as far as Darwin on the theory explaining why there exists undubitable facts such as that life evolves just that we do not know exactly how it evolves, also explained the following in 300BC:

- The Atom
- The Molecule
- Law of Inertia
- Principle of Universal Natural Law
- Rain Cycle
- Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air
- Light Composed of Particles
- Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose
- Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts
- Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles
- Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines
- Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source
- Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection
- Matter is Mostly Empty Space
- Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles
- Fire is not an Element
- No Center of the Universe
- Other Planetary Systems
- Speed of Light is Finite
- Theory of Relativity
- Quantum Indeterminism
- Brownian Motion

So why were we not on the moon then 400 years later in about 100AD?

Well...

The reason we were not on the moon 400 years later in 400 AD is because cumilatively not enough knowledge had been aquired by mankind to achieve that feat.

On average lets say for arguements sake that "original" thinkers whose ideas have a profound and life changing effects on the human race only 10 are born every century.

So through the ages it took only approx a couple of thousand original thinkers to put us on the moon.

And then you have the innovators who take advantage of these original ideas and so on so its all a team effort and of course conditions and the motivation has to be there in the first place.

Agree about the Catholic Church cult, mankind would have been better off with out it.

Evolution is all about diversifying, splitting into different species, we are now Homo Sapiens, what are we go to split into?
2 different human species...is it happening now?...now theres a thought!

[desA]

...as Darwin on the theory explaining why there exists undubitable facts such as that life evolves just that we do not know exactly how it evolves,...

A theory, at best. The humanists would love to prove that no Intelligent Designer is responsible for the splendour of creation.

The fact is - they are completely blind-sided by their arrogance, ignorance & rebellion. Man was simply created in The Designer's image. Once you can accept that God is completely responsible for our little time-capsule on planet Earth, then a lot more begins to make sense.

Anyway, I digress. :)

[Gary]

If the splendours of the universe implies a superior creator, then that creator must necessarily have a superior creator, which in turn implies the creator's creator's creator, which in turn implies... etc... etc... etc... ad infinitum.

[desA]

We digress. Apologies to Marc.

:off topic:

[Gary]

If we are to say that the wonders of the universe are evidence of a creator, then we must say the the wonders of that creator are evidence of the creator's creator and so on...

Any evidence of a creator must necessarily be evidence of a creator's creator.

Or we must say that the wonders of the universe are not evidence of a creator. There is no evidence of a creator.

[desA]

If we all lived in Flatland (2D), we'd find it difficult to understand the real world (3D, or more?)... :D

[Gary]

Which proves what?

[desA]

Which proves what?

A bit like the painting trying to figure out what makes the artist tick.

[lawrence1]

Is this post going somewhere?

[DTLarca]

The reason we were not on the moon 400 years later in 400 AD is because cumilatively not enough knowledge had been aquired by mankind to achieve that feat.

We shouldn't really discuss religion on these discussion boards unless there is a forum zone especially dedicated to it.

But the Christians closed down all the schools of science and burned most of the works. The Library at Alexandria was burned down by Christians. See the film "Agora" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbuEhwselE0 Or read the many books I have from my personal philosophy library worth over £3000.00 :)


On average lets say for arguments sake that "original" thinkers whose ideas have a profound and life changing effects on the human race only 10 are born every century.

The word revolution comes from Copernicus's book about the revolutions of the planets - he proposed different from Christian dogma - he proposed that the planets orbited the sun and not all around earth - that was the moment when western civilisation was jolted back in line with the Greeks. Then the books by Sextus Empiricus were set free from being hidden in vaults in Constantinople - the Christians had hid them there until the Muslims got hold of gun powder and cannons which meant they were finally able to penetrate the walls of Constantinople. These books then were brought to Europe by escaping Christians who were intercepted by folks in the various towns they traveled who took the books and translated them and KABOOM the lid on the nonsense that was Christian Dogma was released and truth sprang forth everywhere.

It then took Europe 100 years to study these books and catch up with the Greeks and then about 400 years to get to the space age. The Greeks would not have needed 100 years to catch up with themselves.


So through the ages it took only approx a couple of thousand original thinkers to put us on the moon.

Nope just a few key thinkers like Galileo and Newton.


And then you have the innovators who take advantage of these original ideas and so on so its all a team effort and of course conditions and the motivation has to be there in the first place.

Technology develops at exponential rates - the Greeks were on the verge of a technological explosion.


Evolution is all about diversifying, splitting into different species, we are now Homo Sapiens, what are we go to split into?
2 different human species...is it happening now?...now theres a thought!

There has to be isolation of one group from another or there has to be a global catastrophe.

[DTLarca]

Testing testing testing

[DTLarca]

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, dez@clanram.com and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

[DTLarca]

Des, we must not talk religion :)

I can share some philosophical points with you though. They are employed as counterfactuals against religious dogma but they are philosophical in nature rather than religious.

[DTLarca]

Gary has shared one which John Stuart Mill made famous and then too Bertrand Russel which is that if the universe could not just be on its own accord then so too nor could a god. And if God does creates creatures then why do we not see a new species just pop into life randomly here there and everywhere in front of our eyes? It makes more sense that life evolves slowly.

The infinit regress argument - what made God and what made that which made god etc was well established too by Greek philosophy - Sextus Empiricus before 200AD said "Nor yet by way of something unclear. For the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is in need of proof: if it is said to be proved by way of something clear, it will no longer be unclear but clear. Therefore the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is not proved by way of something clear. Nor yet by way of something unclear: anyone who says this will fall into an infinite regress, since we shall always demand a proof of the unclear item brought forward to prove the point at issue."

[DTLarca]

If you read Immanuel Kant's "Critique of pure reason" where he tried to argue for God's existence and in the end showed instead that nothing could possibly be known of any god at all you will see that all and every talk of any god can only ever be a nonsense - Kant showed that it is not possible to talk of a god without contradicting yourself.

[DTLarca]

For instance - if we have free will god cannot be omniscient - because if he knows our every move into the future then our every move is predetermined and so only god can be blamed for everything we do. So if we do have free will then god does not know everything and if he does not know everything he would be being intellectually dishonest deciding on who should go to hell and who should not.

[DTLarca]

Christians, for instance, can never be morally good. Only an atheist can be morally good. Christians can only ever do good but they can never be morally good. If you see £5 on the table and know that you could take it and get away with it without ever being caught and yet you choose not to, of your own volition, then you are being morally good. If you choose not to because otherwise you might be sent to hell then you have failed to be morally good but you have at least been good. And if you are Christian but choose of your own volition not to take the £5 then you are disobeying your god for not being god fearing in which case you are a liar for not being a proper Christian.

[DTLarca]

With regard to evolution - evolution is an absolutely undeniable fact made up of many many facts. Gravity is an absolutely undeniable fact too. The theory of gravity is supported in Newtonian mechanics by the formula F = (Gm1m2)/r² which is a good and popular theory but it is not the only one since there is also Einsteins theory which proves more accurate and Feynman insisted on an even more elegant formula. Like there are different theories to explain gravity there are different theories to explain evolution. But no one offering these theories for gravity or for evolution can deny the facts that there is overwhelming evidence that gravity exists and that life evolves. We can argue over which theory better explains gravity or evolution but it would be idiotic to argue whether or not there was gravity or evolution.

[DTLarca]

Sorry for the multiple posts - server kept throwing errors though unless I broke it down.

[DTLarca]

This was a comment on "Gods" and theists by Sextus Empiricus who was a Greek Roman who studied the little bits of Greek philosophy he could get a hold of. He was there in Rome at the time of the birth of Christianity...

Our word "Empirical" is derived from Sextus's surname Empiricus :)


Sextus Empiricus on God (160-210 AD)


From Book 3 of the "Outlines of Scepticism"
Writen by Sextus Empiricus before approximately 210AD

Since the majority have asserted that god is a most active cause, let us first consider god, remarking by way of preface that, following ordinary life without opinions, we say that there are gods and we are pious towards the gods and say that they are provident: it is against the rashness of the Dogmatists that we make the following points.

We ought to form a conception of the substance of the things we conceive, e.g. whether they are bodies or incorporeal. Also of their form - no-one could conceive of a horse unless he had previously learned the form of a horse. Further, what is conceived of ought to be conceived of somewhere.

Now, since some of the Dogmatists say that god is a body, others that he is incorporeal, some that he is anthropomorphic, others not, some in space, others not - and of those who say that he is in space, some say that he is within the universe, others that he is outside it - how shall we be able to acquire a conception of god if we possess neither an agreed substance for him nor a form nor a place in which he is? Let them first agree and form a consensus that god is of such-and-such a kind; and only then, having given us an outline account, let them require us to form a concept of god. As long as they remain in undecidable dispute, we have no agreement from them as to what we should think.

But, they say, conceive of something indestructible and blessed, and hold that to be god. This is silly: just as, if you do not know Dio, you cannot think of his attributes as attributes of Dio, so, since we do not know the substance of god, we shall not be able to learn and to conceive of his attributes.

Moreover, let them tell us what it is to be blessed - whether it is to act in accordance with virtue and to provide for the things subordinated to you, or rather to be inactive and take no trouble to yourself and cause none to others. They have had an undecidable dispute about this too, thus making blessedness - and therefore god - incon­ceivable by us.

Even granting that god is indeed conceivable, it is necessary to suspend judgement about whether gods exist or not, so far as the Dogmatists are concerned. For it is not clear that gods exist: if the gods made an impression on us in themselves, the Dogmatists would be in agreement as to what they are and of what form and where; but the undecidable dispute has made it seem to us that the gods are unclear and in need of proof.

Now anyone who tries to prove that there are gods, does so either by way of something clear or else by way of something unclear. Certainly not by way of something clear; for if what proves that there are gods were clear, then since what is proved is thought of in relation to what proves and is therefore also apprehended together with it, as we have established, it will also be clear that there are gods, this being apprehended together with what proves it, which, itself is clear. But it is not clear, as we have suggested; therefore it is not proved by way of something clear.

Nor yet by way of something unclear. For the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is in need of proof: if it is said to be proved by way of something clear, it will no longer be unclear but clear. Therefore the unclear item which is to prove that there are gods is not proved by way of something clear. Nor yet by way of something unclear: anyone who says this will fall into an infinite regress, since we shall always demand a proof of the unclear item brought forward to prove the point at issue.

The existence of gods, therefore, cannot be proved from anything else.

But if it is neither clear in itself nor proved by something else, then it will be inapprehensible whether or not there are gods. Again, there is this to be said. Anyone who says that there are gods says either that they provide for the things in the universe or that they do not - and that if they provide, then either for all things or for some. But if they provided for all things, there would be nothing bad and evil in the universe; but they say that everything is full of evil. Therefore the gods will not be said to provide for everything.

But if they provide for some things, why do they provide for these and not for those? Either they both want to and can provide for all, or they want to but cannot, or they can but do not want to, or they neither want to nor can. If they both wanted to and could, then they would provide for all; but they do not provide for all, for the reason I have just given; therefore it is not the case that they both want to and can provide for all. If they want to but cannot, they are weaker than the cause in virtue of which they cannot provide for the things for which they do not provide; but it is contrary to the concept of god that a god should be weaker than anything. If they can provide for all but do not want to, they will be thought to be malign. If they neither want to nor can, they are both malign and weak - and only the impious would say this about the gods.

The gods, therefore, do not provide for the things in the universe. But if they have providence for nothing and have no function and no effect, we will not be able to say how it is apprehended that there are gods, since it is neither apparent in itself nor apprehended by way of any effects. For this reason too, then, it is inapprehensible whether there are gods.

From this we deduce that those who firmly state that there are gods are no doubt bound to be impious: if they say that the gods provide for everything, they will say that they are a cause of evil; and if they say that they provide for some things or even for none at all, they will be bound to say either that the gods are malign or that they are weak - and anyone who says this is clearly impious.

[Gary]

Either the creator always existed or the creation always existed. All paths lead to infinity. Infinity is a fact.

Evolution = mutation = evolution. There is ample evidence of evolution in the fact of mutation. There is mutation, therefore there is evolution. Evolution is a fact.

And of course by "fact" I mean that which is highly likely. :)

[DTLarca]

Either the creator always existed or the creation always existed. All paths lead to infinity. Infinity is a fact.

Evolution = mutation = evolution. There is ample evidence of evolution in the fact of mutation. There is mutation, therefore there is evolution. Evolution is a fact.

And of course by "fact" I mean that which is highly likely. :)

The Roman Catholic Church - Vatican City - accepts evolution as a fact and they also prefer Darwin's theory to the competing theories. They just think that their God started it and guides it. But any guidance at all would be a removal of free will.

If I will to train hard for a game of squash I want to win and God makes the other guy win because the other guy said a prayer then bang goes any usefulness of my free will.

One of the first theories of evolution was offered before Darwin by a guy called Will Smith who suggested there had been many creations and subsequent recreations where each subsequent creation had improvements. Darwin used ancient atheist Greek arguments to defeat Smith's religiously biased interpretation of the facts that undeniably show evolution does happen even if we never get to understand exactly how it happens.

[Gary]

If there is guidance, divine or otherwise, it must necessarily exist in the form of instincts.

[buddy]

A theory, at best. The humanists would love to prove that no Intelligent Designer is responsible for the splendour of creation.

The fact is - they are completely blind-sided by their arrogance, ignorance & rebellion. Man was simply created in The Designer's image. Once you can accept that God is completely responsible for our little time-capsule on planet Earth, then a lot more begins to make sense.

Anyway, I digress. :)

OK, I,ll bite.

And who,s God are you talking about?

Thor, Allah, Blootoh or any of the other 120,000 Gods it is estimated that deluded human beings believe in today?

So if you dont believe in all of those other Gods and only your 1 God that makes you a 99% athiest1

Undeserved Religious priviledge -
Look at my own Country, the UK that in the year 2011 religious priviledge is rife.

26 Bishops sit in the house of Lords governing the lives of 60 million UK citizens?

Muslim, Catholic, Jewish and other faith schools (you need to brainwash em when they are young) are paid for by British taxpayers?

Religious institutions claim charitable status so pay no tax at all>
Blasphemy laws still exist etc etc.

Evolution is not a theory nor is the age of the Earth, it is established fact!

If you personally believe an bronze age myths and a book called the Bible that was written by 40 different authors in different times and that the Earth is only 10,000 years old and believe in a talking snake and that an invisible man sits on a cloud up in the sky conducting devine survellance of Billions of peoples every thought and action 24 hours a day for eternity whilst at the same time designing the entire universe you should keep it to youself lest someone thinks you are a nutter and belong in a mental institution.

But oh no its called religion, so its acceptable as it has the advantage because it came before science?

What relevance has this got to do with science?

If you dont know the Roman Catholic church actively hunted down and murdered scientists in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries.

So perhaps the knowledge of thermodynamic laws that we manipulate and depend on for a living on this forum would have been discovered earlier if it wasnt for religion.

I pity your childeren if this what you believe as what the cults demand of you will be brainwashing there young minds and the deluded cycle will continue.

Religion needs challenging at EVERY opportunity, it is not a force for good.

Religious apologists are a bunch of hypocrites.

[DTLarca]

Religious apologists are a bunch of hypocrites.

Bashing religion is a no no. But exposing the inconsistencies in its propositions is perfectly legit.

I try to stick to commenting on the matters of inconsistency.

But with regard to hypocrites - they are often right. A smoker who warns you not to smoke might be a hypocrite but he also has better grounds in support of his advice than a non smoker - he has all the grounds a non smoker might have plus he has experience too. In fact very often you will find we should pay more respect to the advice of hypocrites than we should others.

[nevgee]

restraint is good practice ....:D

[desA]

@ buddy (answering your post):

For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, but rather, 'a person of faith'.

My walk began at the age of 17 when I had a real encounter with God. This was an intensely personal experience & has influenced my life ever since. Over the course of my life, I have become more convinced of God's existence.

I would never attempt to 'convert' you, or anyone else for that matter. 'Matters of faith' are intensely personal & each human will have to decide whether to follow God, or otherwise. We have all been given a free will to decide to either accept, or reject the Intelligent Designer. No-one, no institution, nor organised religion has the right to impose on your free will. Actually, not even God will violate your free will.

Seek & you will find the answers you are looking for. I wish you the very best in this search. :)

[DTLarca]

Seek & you will find the answers you are looking for. I wish you the very best in this search. :)

Bayes Theorum must be applied in every search of any kind involving interpretation. It helps one avoid confirmation bias - something all humans are programmed from evolution to do. Humans are programed to see what they want to see and to be blind to counter evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

This is why when you are trying to discover the truth of some matter experimentally or exploratory you should try even to perform thinking double blindedly.

I use cryptic questions to avoid people helping me solve a problem from seeing it from my point of view from the outset lest their view become as corrupted and as confused on the matter as much as I am.

Tell people it is a vase and many will immediately see this, not all, but many will because you told them that is what you see. Tell them instead that it is a face and they then don't see the vase and so on.

http://www.uic.edu/com/eye/LearningAboutVision/EyeSite/OpticalIllustions/FaceVase.shtml

[buddy]

@ buddy (answering your post):

For the record, I do not consider myself to be a religious person, but rather, 'a person of faith'.

My walk began at the age of 17 when I had a real encounter with God. This was an intensely personal experience & has influenced my life ever since. Over the course of my life, I have become more convinced of God's existence.

I would never attempt to 'convert' you, or anyone else for that matter. 'Matters of faith' are intensely personal & each human will have to decide whether to follow God, or otherwise. We have all been given a free will to decide to either accept, or reject the Intelligent Designer. No-one, no institution, nor organised religion has the right to impose on your free will. Actually, not even God will violate your free will.

Seek & you will find the answers you are looking for. I wish you the very best in this search. :)

Wow at the age of 17 you had a real encounter with God, ...please tell me what did God look like?

Person of faith, religious person, its all semantics.

The point i am trying to make is that Religion is not passive, by its very nature it is aggressive and strives to recruit as many to the cult as possible.

Religion also is an identifier, it divides people.

I gave an example about the UK, Religion is interfering in my daily life and millions of other people, i pay taxes to fund the fairy story...unelected Bishops rule over me, 30 million pounds was spent on the protector of the priestly child abusers visit to the UK last year...how many schoolchildren could 30 million pounds educate?

I am not happy that Religion has this undeserved respect and influence in my life.

You may say its a personal thing but you still found it in your heart to espouse your deluded beliefs on a Refrigeration forum...rather typical evangelical religious behaviour dont you think?

I am certainly not searching for meaning in some ancient excuse for the story of the existance of the Earth and human beings place on it.

Humans have aquired knowledge and have moved on since the bronze age, or it seems some of us have.

[DTLarca]

Wow at the age of 17 you had a real encounter with God, ...please tell me what did God look like?

Person of faith, religious person, its all semantics.

The point i am trying to make is that Religion is not passive, by its very nature it is aggressive and strives to recruit as many to the cult as possible.

Religion also is an identifier, it divides people.

I gave an example about the UK, Religion is interfering in my daily life and millions of other people, i pay taxes to fund the fairy story...unelected Bishops rule over me, 30 million pounds was spent on the protector of the priestly child abusers visit to the UK last year...how many schoolchildren could 30 million pounds educate?

I am not happy that Religion has this undeserved respect and influence in my life.

You may say its a personal thing but you still found it in your heart to espouse your deluded beliefs on a Refrigeration forum...rather typical evangelical religious behaviour dont you think?

I am certainly not searching for meaning in some ancient excuse for the story of the existance of the Earth and human beings place on it.

Humans have aquired knowledge and have moved on since the bronze age, or it seems some of us have.

Buddy - I am a member of the British Humanist Society - we protested the popes visit to the UK last year - it went well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

[desA]

@ buddy:

I'll refer you to post #47. I suspect that you'll find my entry was in response to a point of view. I expressed my view - it was discussed, you laid into me, I rebutted & here we are. :)

I think that enough has been said on this matter. I rest. Back to matters of refrigeration nature. :)

[frank]

Guys
The are 2 subjects that are not allowed on this forum

Religion and Politics

Please read the forum rules

Can we keep this thread on the original subject please

[desA]

Agreed Frank. Apologies. :rolleyes:

[DTLarca]

A theory, at best. The humanists would love to prove that no Intelligent Designer is responsible for the splendour of creation.

Applying philosophical logic...

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a false slogan as far as atheism goes.

Consider the question of whether there is butter in my fridge.

If we do not open the door and have a look inside there will be an absence of evidence for the butter being there, but this would not add up to evidence of its absence.

If we look inside the fridge and thoroughly examine it and don't find any butter then we have an absence of evidence which really does add up to evidence of absence.

In fact what other evidence could there be for the butter not being there other than a failure to find any evidence that it is there?

Something which does not exist leaves no mark so it can only be an absence of marks of its existence that can be evidence of its absence or of its non-existence.

The strongest evidence that there is no elephant in your fridge is that none is found when you open the fridge.

So the evidence for atheism is to be found in the fact that there is a plethora of evidence for the truth of naturalism and an absence of evidence for anything else including goblins, hobbits or gods.

[DTLarca]

Guys
The are 2 subjects that are not allowed on this forum

Religion and Politics

Please read the forum rules

Can we keep this thread on the original subject please

Of course, yes.

[MikeHolm]

Reading this thread brings me to the very basic concept of BEER, lovely BEER and the need for lots of it. Tis better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous physics when when under the affluence of inkahol. Cheers. DT I will read your articles on a hot day while quaffing some noble golden libation.
So, on to the underwood with you.

[nevgee]

Reading this thread brings me to the very basic concept of BEER, lovely BEER and the need for lots of it. Tis better to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous physics when when under the affluence of inkahol. Cheers. DT I will read your articles on a hot day while quaffing some noble golden libation.
So, on to the underwood with you.


Reality is an ellusion created by alcohol deficiency.
;)

[Goober]

I'm a fan of Black Bears..........

[rooboy]

Gday Fellas

Haven't posted much over the past few years. Read quite often with interest though.

Much sources of wonderful knowledge on here I have to say.

This is a ripper of a thread.

I had no idea us fridgies were so intelligent.

Maybe we could get this thread published in some plumbing and trade mags - just to mess with their heads :eek:

How did believing in God stop us from getting to the moon in 400BC ? Bit confused

Rooboy

[rooboy]

Apologies moderator, didn't realise I had not read all posts on this thread.

Rooboy

[nevgee]

Gday Fellas

Haven't posted much over the past few years. Read quite often with interest though.

Much sources of wonderful knowledge on here I have to say.

This is a ripper of a thread.

I had no idea us fridgies were so intelligent.

Maybe we could get this thread published in some plumbing and trade mags - just to mess with their heads :eek:

How did believing in God stop us from getting to the moon in 400BC ? Bit confused

Rooboy


Right on dude :).... you must be a mystic as well, along with everyone else .... :D