Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-07-2013, 01:20 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-07-2013 01:05 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  No, it can if we stick with the "best of all possible worlds concept."

Cosmic narcissism.

(02-07-2013 01:05 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  But let's not digress, though you are STILL not explaining why the value derived is two.

You just don't get it, do you?

Gravity is described by a field - it is conservative (path independent), and the divergence of free space is zero. It is rotationally symmetric. Space is macroscopically three dimensional. Therefore the constant relating its proportionality to its radial distance is two. Two is equal to three minus one. I already explained this:
(26-06-2013 03:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Learn to science.

(02-07-2013 01:05 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Perhaps you can tell us all how and why gravity behaves as you think it does? I'm fascinated...

That is how gravity behaves, my friend. I'm as certain of that as I am of anything, including your failure to grasp either said fact or its significance.

You may notice (I'm being charitable) that this has nothing whatsoever to do with how gravity arises. It is a description.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-07-2013, 01:24 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
Is this the infamous If the universe was different, it would be different "argument"? I didn't think anyone was still using it.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes guitar_nut's post
02-07-2013, 05:45 PM (This post was last modified: 02-07-2013 05:53 PM by Hafnof.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(26-06-2013 02:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Exactly, we can likewise examine the formula for the tug of gravity itself:

Fg = G (m1*m2)/(d^2)

That last "2" is 2.00000 and is thought to be random. Random might be 1.34576 or 2.14356. Any deviation from "2" and things in the universe fall to pieces...

"Random", right?

PJ, the two here is not random. It's the G that has some potential to be random. G's value is 6.67384x10^-11m^3kg^-1s^-2 according to google.

The 2 here is a square - distance squared. The force of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the object. It's a consequence of the surface area of a sphere being 4*pi*r^2. Essentially in three-dimensional space the gravity can be understood as covering the surface of a sphere. The "amount" of gravity the object has is spread out over the entire surface of the sphere, so at any point on the sphere the "amount" of gravity you feel will be inversely proportional to the total surface area of the sphere. The surface area increases with the square of the distance from the object, so the gravity decreases with the square of the distance of the object. At least, that's the basic model. The two in the formula for gravitational attraction is exactly as random as the two in the formula for the surface area of a sphere, which is to say not at all random given the starting assumption of three dimensional space.

Whoever you got your information from is not a reliable source on this topic.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
02-07-2013, 07:33 PM
Re: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
According to Pleasy-Jeezy, 3 - 1 = goldfish. Or at least it should, since geometry is apparently "random".

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Phaedrus's post
02-07-2013, 07:37 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-07-2013 07:33 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  According to Pleasy-Jeezy, 3 - 1 = goldfish. Or at least it should, since geometry is apparently "random".

Checkmate, atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
02-07-2013, 09:43 PM (This post was last modified: 03-07-2013 01:57 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
This idiotic nonsense SPJTJ has been peddling here, (actually he copied it out of a fundie web site, as to this day he couldn't even state that the "2" in the equation was the square of the radius of the distance between the objects), is refuted in two more ways not mentioned yet.

1. In Logic, it's the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, as he has in no way, ruled out any other possibility, (and there are many), than "oh, Jebus-god done it"). (It's also called "god of the gaps", and an "argument from ignorance", but Pleasy-dumb-ass wouldn't know that). There could be countless reasons the laws of physics "fell" out the way they did, but unfortunately Pleasy is too unimaginative to think what other possibilities are/were. It also does not serve his sales agenda to get more cult members if he admits there are other possibilities other than his Jebus.

2. Another good argument is Chaos Theory, (disambiguation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"This happens (widely divergent outcomes, even though there are very small differences in initial conditions) even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved." (Wiki)

llert, Stephen H. (1993). In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems. University of Chicago Press.
Basener, William F. (2006). Topology and its applications. Wiley.
Heidel, J.; Fu, Z. (1999). "Nonchaotic behaviour in three-dimensional quadratic systems II. The conservative case".
Poincaré, Jules Henri (1890). "Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique. Divergence des séries de M. Lindstedt".
Diacu, Florin; Holmes, Philip (1996). Celestial Encounters: The Origins of Chaos and Stability. Princeton University Press.
Mandelbrot, Benoît (1963). "The variation of certain speculative prices". Journal of Business
Mandelbrot, B. (1977). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Freeman.
Motter A. E. and Campbell D. K., Chaos at fifty, Phys. Today, 2013).
Victoria White, Office Of Public Information, University Of Florida Health Science Center. "Chaos Theory Helps To Predict Epileptic Seizures, U. Florida".
Motter, A.E. (2003). "Relativistic chaos is coordinate invariant". Phys. Rev. Lett.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgnKwbu12PLbbo3TM6EDx...paNPGkMq9o]Thus people remain exactly where they are.

Question: How do you rise into the heavens ?
Answer: Don't go in circles !
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 11:49 AM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
If your going to criticize then you ought to do your homework. Most of the writers of the biblical texts did in fact claim divine inspiration, eg... Solomon, Moses, Paul, Peter etc.. so they did know about it. Your correct about the fact that added books to the canon were not God inspired but voted in.
1. He takes a given subject like the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:1-17, or a book of the Bible as a whole, or the Bible in its entirety, and shows the following kind of phenomena:
2. The number of words in the vocabulary will divide by the number seven.
3. The number of words beginning with a vowel is divisible by seven.
4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is divisible by seven.
5. The number of letters in the vocabulary is divisible by seven.
6. Of these letters, those which are consonants and those which are vowels both divide by seven.
7. The number of words in the vocabulary occurring more than once is divisible by seven. Those occurring only once likewise divide by seven.
8. The number of words occurring in more than one form is divisible by seven. The number occurring in only one form likewise divides by seven.
9. The number of nouns is divisible by seven. The number that are not nouns divides by seven.
10. The number of proper names divides by seven. The male names divide by seven. The female names divide by seven.
11. The number of words beginning with each of the letters of the alphabet is divisible by seven.

Numerical Values for Letters
The Bible is written in two languages; the Old Testament in Hebrew (the few chapters in Chaldee being for numeric purposes the same as Hebrew); the New Testament in Greek. Both these languages have this peculiarity: they have no separate symbols for numbers, corresponding to our modern Arabic figures, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0. In their place they make use of the letters of their alphabet, so that each Hebrew and Greek letter stands also for a certain number. This is called the numeric value of the letter. As each word consists of letters, the numeric value of a word is the sum of the numeric values of its letters. The numeric value of a sentence, paragraph, chapter, book or volume, or library, is the sum of numeric values of the words of which these consist.
By means of these numeric values the Greeks and Hebrews performed all their numeric operations. But in Scripture an additional system is used for the purpose of numeric construction of the text, that of Place Values.


(29-01-2013 08:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-01-2013 08:11 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Edgar Allen Poe, proved to be inspired by god using Ivan's techniques, and others.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html
The writers of the texts never once claimed it. They knew nothing about it. The texts were included in the canon for reasons that had nothing to do with "inspiration". No one even mentioned "inspired" until many hundreds of years after they were written. Was it "random chance" that when they were VOTED, non-unanimously by the councils as the canon, only the texts that had numerogical patterns were included. Did Panin ever study the others to see if they were NOT there. LOL. There are "neumerogical" patterns in Harry Potter, and Buddy's book, and Shakespeare also. They are there in any set of letters, NOT just the Babble. Did he ever study those. Why did he re-write some of them to make them come out to fit his crap ? Are THOSE inspired ? (Well Buddy C's IS "inspired, but by the debil Tongue ).

For every beauty there is an eye somewhere to see it.
For every truth there is an ear somewhere to hear it.
For every love there is a heart somewhere to receive it.
Ivan Panin
The proof he understood "confirmation bias", and one sees what one is looking for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2013, 08:45 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2013 10:59 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(03-10-2013 11:49 AM)Fellow traveler Wrote:  1. He takes a given subject like the genealogy of Christ in Matt 1:1-17, or a book of the Bible as a whole, or the Bible in its entirety, and shows the following kind of phenomena:
2. The number of words in the vocabulary will divide by the number seven.
3. The number of words beginning with a vowel is divisible by seven.
4. The number of words beginning with a consonant is divisible by seven.
5. The number of letters in the vocabulary is divisible by seven.
6. Of these letters, those which are consonants and those which are vowels both divide by seven.
7. The number of words in the vocabulary occurring more than once is divisible by seven. Those occurring only once likewise divide by seven.
8. The number of words occurring in more than one form is divisible by seven. The number occurring in only one form likewise divides by seven.
9. The number of nouns is divisible by seven. The number that are not nouns divides by seven.
10. The number of proper names divides by seven. The male names divide by seven. The female names divide by seven.
11. The number of words beginning with each of the letters of the alphabet is divisible by seven.

This is all version dependent. We don't have the original autographs, and our earliest copies have many differences. There are more differences between the manuscripts than there are words in the Bible, to quote Dr. Bart Ehrman. So one particular collection of Greek translations will get everything neatly divided by seven, another will not because all you need is 1 extra word to throw everything off.

Numerology is bullshit... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 02:34 PM
RE: Ivan Panin's "Proof".
(02-07-2013 09:43 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  This idiotic nonsense SPJTJ has been peddling here, (actually he copied it out of a fundie web site, as to this day he couldn't even state that the "2" in the equation was the square of the radius of the distance between the objects), is refuted in two more ways not mentioned yet.

1. In Logic, it's the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent, as he has in no way, ruled out any other possibility, (and there are many), than "oh, Jebus-god done it"). (It's also called "god of the gaps", and an "argument from ignorance", but Pleasy-dumb-ass wouldn't know that). There could be countless reasons the laws of physics "fell" out the way they did, but unfortunately Pleasy is too unimaginative to think what other possibilities are/were. It also does not serve his sales agenda to get more cult members if he admits there are other possibilities other than his Jebus.

2. Another good argument is Chaos Theory, (disambiguation).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
"This happens (widely divergent outcomes, even though there are very small differences in initial conditions) even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved." (Wiki)

llert, Stephen H. (1993). In the Wake of Chaos: Unpredictable Order in Dynamical Systems. University of Chicago Press.
Basener, William F. (2006). Topology and its applications. Wiley.
Heidel, J.; Fu, Z. (1999). "Nonchaotic behaviour in three-dimensional quadratic systems II. The conservative case".
Poincaré, Jules Henri (1890). "Sur le problème des trois corps et les équations de la dynamique. Divergence des séries de M. Lindstedt".
Diacu, Florin; Holmes, Philip (1996). Celestial Encounters: The Origins of Chaos and Stability. Princeton University Press.
Mandelbrot, Benoît (1963). "The variation of certain speculative prices". Journal of Business
Mandelbrot, B. (1977). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. New York: Freeman.
Motter A. E. and Campbell D. K., Chaos at fifty, Phys. Today, 2013).
Victoria White, Office Of Public Information, University Of Florida Health Science Center. "Chaos Theory Helps To Predict Epileptic Seizures, U. Florida".
Motter, A.E. (2003). "Relativistic chaos is coordinate invariant". Phys. Rev. Lett.

Wow, BB. It seems it took you a month to find that refutation?

Except that I'm not guilty of "Affirming the Consequent" but rather, citing the fact that the Inverse Square Law and etc. (like that affecting electricity and radiation over a distance!) are precise. E=MC what? It isn't an exponent like 1.678 or 2.345678 but 2.00000.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: