Probate Objection Forms: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for A2A. I think they’re looking for your replacement, and when s/he is found you’ll be let go. Start looking for a new job, if you haven’t already, and don’t wait to be fired. It’s better to not have to explain a firing in your work history.Try to look at the reasons for your probation objectively. It’s hard, because people’s feelings get hurt when this happens. But it may be useful information about what to do differently on your next job. Good luck!

Question: “Do God deniers realize that the Big Bang Theory violates the first law of thermodynamics?”So much wrong in one sentence. Where to start?First, atheism has nothing to do with explaining the origins of the Universe, but rather with disbelieving (not “denying”), god(s).Most atheists do not deny god(s), in the same sense that a juror who chooses a non-guilty verdict does not deny that the defendant could have committed the crime after all.But he needs not show proof of innocence to support his non-guilty verdict, because “innocent” is not even his claim. He simply remains unconvinced by the subjective evidence presented by the prosecutor, and therefore he sees no compelling reason to risk sending to jail someone who is probably innocent.Having cleared that, let’s move on to the theory: Does the Big Bang Theory really violate the first law of thermodynamics? I’m certainly no physicist, nor is the OP of this “question”. Maybe it’s the wrong understanding the OP has about the Big Bang theory, that leads him to wrongly believe that the Big Bang Theory does violate the first law of thermodynamics?I mean, with so many physicists submitting peer-reviewed articles about the BB, wouldn’t that “little” problem with the theory already surfaced, if it was a problem?But OK, I’ll bite. Let’s go along with the OP and suppose that it does.So what? Unlike religious dogma, Science evolves.We did not get the atomic model right from the start either. But unlike religion, what Science does is accept the contradicting observations as opportunities to find better theories and explanations that actually fit the observations, instead of bending backwards in order to “religiously” justify the old ones.So what, if the BB is proved wrong? Scientist will say, “we do not know, maybe we will never know, but we’re curious enough to keep working on it, to find real answers”.Just because I cannot explain a mysterious crime does not necessarily mean that your baseless assertion that “The butler did, of course! Who else could it be?”, is necessarily right:https://www.quora.com/Where-do-atheists-think-space-came-from/answer/Jo%C3%A3o-Pargana-1For that, you must find actual evidence against the butler.Therefore, dear OP, if you have something against “God deniers”, and would like to shut them up for good, trying to find holes in an opposing explanation (and “Goddidit” actually explains nothing, BTW) is not going to work, because for one, people know that Science evolves anyway, and two, their “evil atheism” does not even hinge on the origins of the Universe.If you would like to shut them up for good, instead of finding holes in other people’s explanations, you must find objective, probative evidence to support your own.Find objective, probative evidence that your god (or any other god) exists, and you will end atheism once and for all. But there’s a catch, thought: “objective, probative evidence” might not mean what you think it means:https://www.quora.com/Do-atheists-believe-their-friend-who-is-wrongly-charged-with-murder-All-proofs-are-against-him-however-he-says-to-the-atheist-friend-that-he-is-not-guilty-Do-they-go-with-the-proof-or-trust-the-friends-word/answer/Jo%C3%A3o-Pargana-1We will be waiting.But if by any chance, all you have to offer is the same old subjective evidence theists have been presenting for the last millennia, please don’t bother. The very same “evidence” that “proves” your god has also been used to “prove” any other god, past, present, or even future.

Exactly. You are asking a question that has been rarely asked since Maxwell.By definition a wave is propagating energy without the significant and permanent displacement of the medium of propagation in the direction of propagation. So waves never ever travel. Only energy propagates in a wave pattern.So if light is a wave then light is propagating energy. But special relativity declared the electromagnetic field light’s medium of probation, which is moving with the light, and it is the reference frame of light. This was done in order to justify experimental findings that the speed of light is the same in any direction, any frame of reference and for all observers. Pretty unscientific if you ask me, but they didn’t know any better at the time.In the 1950’s QFT introduced another model. The fundamental electromagnetic field permeates space everywhere, not just between objects, but all the way down to the subatomic domains of matter.According to one interpretation, the fundamental electromagnetic field is the three-dimensional lattice structure of its quanta, the photons.Electromagnetic energy/radiation propagates in this field as the up and down oscillation of the field values in a wave pattern as the photons of the field transfer the electromagnetic energy to one another in the direction of propagation.As far as the wave-particle duality of light: the photons of the field act like particles, but the field values change like a wave. That’s it.