Is truth relative?

by Pinku 34 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Oubliette

  Coded Logic: WTF?!! I DID cite a Wikipedia article on cosmic infaltion! [sic]

  Wikipedia is not a reliable source:

  "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It usually uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or middlepage in this case). Always be careful of what you read; it may not consistently be reliable because work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. As indicated by WP:CIRCULAR, which is part of the Verifiability policy, neither articles on Wikipedia nor websites that mirror Wikipedia can be used as sources, because this is circular sourcing. An exception to this is when Wikipedia is being discussed in an article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic or other content from Wikipedia or a sister project as a primary source to support a statement about Wikipedia (while avoiding undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference)."
• 

  bohm

  Coded logic:

  Vacuum space set at an energy density of <0 with a wave function of zero (pages 2 and 3 opening perameters and step 6)

  WTF? Where in the paper is the wave function zero? equation 6, the trivial pseduo-solution to the wheeler-dewitt equation? The solution explicitly ruled out later in eqn. 9? are you joking?

  when I sit down and read a peer reivewed scientfic article - I ACTUALLY READ THEM. I don't just give it a currsory scan and then emphatically state "this doesn't have anything to do with what your talking about." Because had you actually done that - you wouldn't be in the uncomfortable position you're in right now desperately seeking some Red Herring to distract from massive blunder you've made.

  lol, I think I touched a nerve here. Good on you that you ACTUALLY READ THEM. I am happy to be informed that I am in company with someone with a better grasp of QG than myself, however in that case i am happily looking forward to hearing your informed answers to my questions regarding the HV article. However what massive blunder are we talking about? the bit about pointing out you plagiarised someone elses work? yah that one is really massive.. totally a red herring. Please angrily lecture me some more about when to properly cite sources and when to plagiarise them.

  CL: Please cite an elementary textbook in physics that shows quantum mechanics requires the existance of time.

  Ah how nice of you to handily re-phrase my point. Let me explain. All elementary textbooks on QM I know of include the time-evolving Schrodinger equation which assumes the existence of time. The article you cited assumes the existence of space-time. No elementary textbook on QM SHOW that time must exist. The paper you cite --which is on a formal point about a particular geometry-- does not SHOW time must exist. Let us also remind ourselves that the geometry the paper you cite discuss may not be the geometry of our universe, but I am sure you are aware of that since it is stated in the first and last paragraph of the cited article which you "ACTUALLY READ" lol

  WTF?!! I DID cite a Wikipedia article on cosmic infaltion! Serriously dude, what is your problem? Learn how to read.

  ... my point related to the instances where you did not cite wikipedia. Again you are just inventing a false context, this is really quite silly of you.

  You're accusing me of having not read it? Wow, you are unbelievable.

  I am sorry, but when a person write:

  CL: I apologies about the plain text, it was the only location of the paper I could find where you didn't have to pay to download it as a PDF

  and post a garbled version of the paper where all the equations are wrong one might be mislead to think he did not read it. This is my error, I now accept you did read the paper. Sorry.

  CL Being logical and being a jack ass are not the same thing

  I totally agree lol.
• 

  bohm

  Oubliette: I was ofcourse being sarcastic, CL "clarified" a comment by copy-pasting someone else and slightly change the wording (see above); It is becoming a theme with CL that he insist on others educating/not knowing about certain subjects without being able to talk about them in his own words, see the "what is logic" thread where we heard people on the forum was not very logical.

  My comments re. wikipedia is only related to posts on a forum, in which case I think wikipedia is better to support a simple claim than an article on quantum cosmology which does not discuss the claim*.

  * However it has been pointed out to me this may be because I am a jackass with a reading disability.
• 

  bohm

  Pinku:

  • Whatever contributes to the welfare of all is right.
  • Whatever contributes to the harm to person/s is wrong.

  If these are inborn in humans, and if we for a moment entertain the thought the spirit world may only be the imagination of humans, would it not follow the ideas from the spirit world would reflect the inborn ideas in humans, namely the above two ideas?
• 

  KateWild

  Pinku,

  The OP had no substance IMO. Are you starting a thread about spititism or truth? I would say your topic title is deceptive.

  Kate xx