(December 4, 2015 at 11:22 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 9:20 am)Little Rik Wrote: Hopeless incurable idiot.  
Why then is radioactive?
Why some types of matter are radioactive and other are not?
Have you ever ask yourself how one type of matter is older compare to a different one and what happen when is getting older?
Have you ever ask yourself what happen to some type of matter under certain conditions.
No, you haven't so shut your mouth.
All you know is that it is radioactive without knowing why it is radioactive.
If i ask you why a donkey is not a man you would say that it is because a donkey is a donkey and a man is a man without understanding the journey to evolution.
Total hopeless beanie.  




Yes i failed.
I also failed to wash my car, to fix that nasty leaking in the bathroom sink and, and and.
But i got good news beanie.
Today i just  ask my boss to come to work a bit late so i can answer them.
Are you happy about that?  

Why are some things radioactive and others aren't?
An excellent question, one I truly had not considered.
Thankfully, after about 10 seconds with Google, I have an answer. Amazing how that works.
Radioactivity is caused by an unstable nucleus trying to balance itself by discharging some of its particles. No magical Chopra-chakras required. Virtually any atom can be radioactive as long as its nucleus is unstable enough to cause radioactive decay.
So you mean to tell me, Rik, that amidst all this other bullshit you're spewing, you didn't have time to address Sofaking's study?
Wow. You're a coward and a liar. Interesting...

You remind me a program that i saw years ago.
It was called...the bush mechanic.
Most Australian aborigines do not register their vehicles and when it brake down rather than go to a mechanic to fix it up they try to fix themselves.
So when they get a flat tyre and are in the middle of nowhere they fill the tyre up with a type of hard grass that grow in the bush.
And it work for sometime.
You do something similar beanie.
You keep on putting patch after patch to your failings arguments hoping that works but as you should know it only work until i unmask your failings.
First you say that uranium release energy because it is radioactive without having a clue why is radioactive.
When i point out this lack of knowledge then you come up with one more patch by going on Google which say......Radioactivity is caused by an unstable nucleus trying to balance itself by discharging some of its particles.......but opshhh beanie you are not explaining why is that so.
What's the point in putting patches here and there if you don't understand a thing?
Fortunately Little Rik is here to help you once again and here we come to the point that i was making when it all started.
Why some matter release energy and other does not?
It all boil down to be stable or unstable.
Take people.
Some are stable while other are unstable.
Many atheists are stable.
They are content with what they got.
They think that this physical universe is ok so they don't worry whether a better place exist or not.
Little Rik on the other hand is unstable.
He understand that this finite universe can not give total peace of mind so he is looking and jump over the fence and guess what he sees and experience over the fence?
Something much greater than this physical universe so we can say that LR is unstable.
Now let us coming back to the matter and uranium in particular.  
The matter in general is like atheism.
This matter is also younger than uranium.
Uranium has ........been there done that ........so to speak so after long long time of been there "he" need to get out for more interesting things to do that is why he is unstable while most of the matter at the very moment is not interested in getting anywhere.
This beanie is a deep philosophical thought which i don't think your brain is at the moment able to understand but you never know maybe in the next life you may well be able to understand.  

Atomically stable =/= mentally stable, you unutterable cretin.

Atomic nuclei try to balance themselves because everything in the Universe is creeping toward a state of general equilibrium. It has to do with particle charge, the Strong Nuclear Force...there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to radioactivity, Rik. There's no short answer. The thing is, there's no evidence that anyone or anything is "making" this happen. Once the point is reached that we no longer have an answer for why something is happening, you don't get to insist that your personal brand of woo is responsible for whatever is beyond that point.


What you're trying to do is childishly push the question of "but why?" to the point that whoever you're asking says "Well, I don't know, and it doesn't seem that anybody else does either," so you can jump in with "Well I DO know, and the answer is Gaud/Yoga/Krishnu/The Great Pumpkin/(insert woo here)!"


It's argument from ignorance, it's tired as fuck, and it's all you've got.

(December 4, 2015 at 11:06 am)SofaKingHigh Wrote:

(December 4, 2015 at 10:51 am)Little Rik Wrote: These researchers behave like plumbers that try to fix some electrical wiring
or electrician that try to fix sewerage pipes.
You never thought about it Sofa, did you?  

You've done plenty of your own study here I take it, care to share?

That is funny Sofa.
Atheists here think that this study is valid because it is done by experts.
Actually i do not say that these experts are a bunch of idiots.
Not at all Sofa.
In fact they must be expert in their field of activities.
The only problem as i already pointed out to you is that they try to enter a field that
is different from their field and therefore require new study which they so far haven't undertaken.
Not only that.
There is a lot more.
Even if you undertake that study that would allow you to understand how that system works is not
certain that you will get any positive result.
Somebody once said......IF YOU WISH GOD TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING TWO "PEOPLE" MUST AGREE....YOU AND GOD.
Considering that that experiment was all about finding out about something not related to what we human think is normal then we are entering God realm if of course we may think God exist.
My understanding is that this experiment if allow to succeed it would go against the principle of learning by  
our own effort defeating in this way the purpose of creation.
No wonder it didn't succeed.  

(December 5, 2015 at 8:24 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Atomic nuclei try to balance themselves because everything in the Universe is creeping toward a state of general equilibrium. It has to do with particle charge, the Strong Nuclear Force...there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to radioactivity, Rik. There's no short answer. The thing is, there's no evidence that anyone or anything is "making" this happen. Once the point is reached that we no longer have an answer for why something is happening, you don't get to insist that your personal brand of woo is responsible for whatever is beyond that point.
What you're trying to do is childishly push the question of "but why?" to the point that whoever you're asking says "Well, I don't know, and it doesn't seem that anybody else does either," so you can jump in with "Well I DO know, and the answer is Gaud/Yoga/Krishnu/The Great Pumpkin/(insert woo here)!"
It's argument from ignorance, it's tired as fuck, and it's all you've got.

Your lack of inquisitiveness is to say the least atrocious.  
Why all the creation wish to go up and not down?  
For up i mean towards more consciousness.
I would find extreme difficult to see all this creation trying to go up unless someone is attracting them
so when you say that there is no evidence....... that anyone or anything is "making" this happen........
just doesn't make any sense.
How can the creation be attracted to nothing?
Total madness beanie.  

(December 5, 2015 at 9:02 am)Little Rik Wrote: Your lack of inquisitiveness is to say the least atrocious.  
Why all the creation wish to go up and not down?  
For up i mean towards more consciousness.
I would find extreme difficult to see all this creation trying to go up unless someone is attracting them
so when you say that there is no evidence....... that anyone or anything is "making" this happen........
just doesn't make any sense.
How can the creation be attracted to nothing?
Total madness beanie.  

Ok, now you're literally just gibbering out word salad. Again.


There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all. It might not have a creator. Evidence seems to indicate that we certainly don't need one to explain how the Universe got here.


There's no evidence that the Universe is moving toward a more "conscious" state. Living organisms sometimes evolve better brains with higher consciousness as they adapt to conditions around them, but there's no evidence that anything else is "going up," as you describe. The Universe isn't moving toward consciousness, it's moving toward equilibrium. You know what equilibrium is, right?


Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

I'll just leave this here for no readily explored reason.

http://deadstate.org/science-confirms-it...lower-iqs/

(December 5, 2015 at 12:51 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(December 5, 2015 at 9:02 am)Little Rik Wrote: Your lack of inquisitiveness is to say the least atrocious.  
Why all the creation wish to go up and not down?  
For up i mean towards more consciousness.
I would find extreme difficult to see all this creation trying to go up unless someone is attracting them
so when you say that there is no evidence....... that anyone or anything is "making" this happen........
just doesn't make any sense.
How can the creation be attracted to nothing?
Total madness beanie.  

Ok, now you're literally just gibbering out word salad. Again.


There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all. It might not have a creator. Evidence seems to indicate that we certainly don't need one to explain how the Universe got here.
There's no evidence that the Universe is moving toward a more "conscious" state. Living organisms sometimes evolve better brains with higher consciousness as they adapt to conditions around them, but there's no evidence that anything else is "going up," as you describe. The Universe isn't moving toward consciousness, it's moving toward equilibrium. You know what equilibrium is, right?
Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

Holy, holy, holy Santa.  
Why you are so mean to me beanie by asking me such a hard question?  
Now i am in real trouble?
Who will helping me?  
I always thought that equilibrium means balance and for balance i intend a stage in which the positive and negative are in perfect equilibrium but no your deep philosophical question must intend something much more deep that that.  
But just in case that LR is correct that means that your logic get flushed down the toilet because anyone looking for more consciousness are not happy with a situation of equilibrium.  
They want progress not equilibrium which is a stage of no progress no regress.  
So no beanie once again you are left down in the gutter which is worse than equilibrium.  

Looking at Rik's threads, it seems he has being going on about the same things for the last 2 years and has still learned nothing.Everything he has brought forth has being debunked.

@Little Rik,You might want to read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance .It explains exactly what you are doing.

(December 6, 2015 at 8:14 am)Red_Wind Wrote: Looking at Rik's threads, it seems he has being going on about the same things for the last 2 years and has still learned nothing.Everything he has brought forth has being debunked.

@Little Rik,You might want to read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance .It explains exactly what you are doing.

I let this guy laugh for me because after hearing so much crap and laughing so much i just lost the strength to laugh anymore.  
You show me something of mine that has been debunked and i will cover you in 24 carat gold.  
Actually there is something that i couldn't prove when i was saying that Lord Shiva was here 7000 years ago
altough i still believe that this is the case but all the rest No.
Nothing, nil, zero.