Stosh

Naughty logs.

“ an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. ” Dickens

One picks their poisons Arya.

duh...

This is very good as a start, , but I'm wondering, do you think doubt can be differentiated from insecurity? There are things one does know and those one doesn't ,, and if one knows they don't know , are we still calling this doubt ? We may have expectations which we see are not the way things are shaping up,,, when does this become doubt? only when one is concerned about the negative ramifications of this growing body of evidence? or does one still doubt when they aren't concerned.

Illusions of opposites

I think thanksgiving is a great holiday, the very lack of reason behind having a single day to appreciate on, frees the day up to be like an old time feasting day, it doesn't have to serve any purpose. Its a very Taoist day , you eat , visit family , watch TV, or whatever you like to do, with some consecutive days off. If I was going to be grumpy about a holiday it would be the next one on the plate. ( I say ,,Festivus is for the rest of us)

It'll probably end up like the opposing forces thing.

Yes sir, it certainly looks that way.

Here's another Brian , in case you figure the first as semantic in nature, A frictionless event -like spinning in space would proceed forever Without interference. Introduce friction , and spinning slows , Right?, well One could say that the friction represents work and just frictionless spinning is just a stable state,, again either positon could be upheld if one did not examine to see if the friction was a neutralization of the spinning force or whether that energy was conserved.By experimental observation ,the energy is conserved, not neutralized , and can be re-emitted as heat, chemical bonds etc.

You're far Wiser than me, in that, Ill admit. I still have the illusions of my childhood , and make efforts

Fine, My turn then, dont get all bent out of shape. Picture a tug of war, both sides exactly matched pulling, then the flag cannot be moving. The same scenario, but neither side is pulling ,, again the flag cannot be moving. The flag is at a stable state either way. Right? And I am contesting that there is no opposing force which occurs , and you are contesting that an opposing force does occur. Right? See the analogy I am making with the tug of war.. well, how could one discern which view is correct since the flag isn't moving Either way! I'll tell you ,, a force is a capacity to effect or affect the movement of an object , stop its trajectory or cause its motion, Still with me? ... Since the scenario presented ,presents in neither case, the movement of the flag,, from its beginning state of being considered still, then there is NO net force acting on it. Which disagrees with your idea that there IS an opposing force.

Brian, your second installment is just a re assertion of your incorrect scenarios, of spontaneous force generation violating conservation of mass and energy,, while its not a check mate, its not a legit argument to just re assert your premise. You can try again when you feel you can counter with some rationale. Or you could just give up ,since there aint no way to argue away the conservation issue, energy dispersion by friction, E=mc2 , all of chemistry, all of particle physics, etc etc etc.

Wu, is requiring but denying intelligent control to muster force to effect change , since no intelligenge is being ascribed by you imagineers, to provide the resistant force ,,Check mate ,to Wu as well, unless he switched sides.

Nungali, Your answers in post 72 , dont hold water, Ill just refute, the last one now , but could do so for the others as well..... you said to move the weight one only had to add the tiniest of forces, Its an incorrect answer because Ive already specified that the forces are neutral,, AND your answer defies the rest of your argument ! Since that tiniest of forces must be unopposed to move the weight. If, as you guys are contending ,some new opposing force appears when one asserts a force, then You could NOT move the weight , you said you could with the " tiniest of forces" .Check-mate ,Nungali.

Fine, I said heavy, because I was referring to Wu and 'lifting' ... but Im not sure on gravity, as a force two things acting on one another, Its a curvature of spacetime effected somehow by certain particles en masse, one space curvature,= no two forces. ... but I can live with gravity as a basis for this. Ok equal forces occurring... But the greater mass effecting more diversion of the lesser mass from a trajectory. Next step?

You can pick a pair , but ,Theyre supposed to be self explanatory taken together.

Oh sure my car can store energy, and I can exhibit inertia and momentum, ,but the resistance to its forward motion doesnt incur any new force to drive it forward or back and without gas it will come to a halt. One fuel tank, no imaginary anti fuel tank.

When does a weight become heavy? If it becomes heavy, why can it be moved? If it is always heavy who is always trying to move it? If it is never heavy, why is it difficult to move? If its weight is precisely neutralized by all the forces applied, can it be moved?

Youre imagining a force into being, guys. Like the imaginary centripetal force, its a concoction to simplify the math, thats all. Slam a door and the energy is dissipated as noise, heat ,stressed bonds, etc. The sum is referred to as an opposing force , but the door jamb was in an energetically neutral state when the thing slammed. All the force added was the slammer's. Conservation says no new force is being called upon to resist things from moving around. Youre essentially implying that a new force occurs to exceed the initial neutral state in order to provide some unspecified amount of energy to oppose an action.

pick a system at constant mass constant energy, add some energy, the energy level doesnt miraculously double ,nor does it self neutralize, it just goes up by the amount of energy applied. Cmon This should be like kindergarten stuff to you. Why are you fighting it? His head isnt in sand, hes perfectly correct.

Digging on ones own reveals that resistance isnt a force. Its a conceptual thing, not actual, resistance is the dissipation of the applied force. Conservation of mass and energy, remember that far back.

One of us is confused Ill wager, I just dont think its me. What does a cross have to do with any of this? As far as I was told, after the death of Jesus, the symbol was invented to mock and insult his followers, as in, Ha ha, your guy was shown to be nothing special ,by getting killed in a horrendous way. That it was adopted later , wisely and with much spin, to represent sacrifice ,love , and gods power..doesnt support that the design was made with pleasant connotation. Just that the followers refused the insult. The taijii is a perfectly good symbol for dualism, The earth fire water stuff comparatively is a better refutation of duality. Chessboard? I dont see anything in it.

I think its a lovely maiden, looking for the origins of the world in the ass of a peacock.