i was wondering..

[JokuJak]

Today i went to work by bike like i do everyday but somehow i had this weird question which is still bothering me:

Where does the universe come from?

[BlueYaws]

Uranus.

[JokuJak]

Uranus is largely hydrogen and helium, but (like Neptune) contains higher proportions of heavy elements than Jupiter or Saturn, and is covered with clouds. Our only direct spacecraft observation of Uranus came from Voyager 2 in 1986.


Sounds like an planet to me :X

[BlueYaws]

Well maybe it was Ur Anus. Don't know.

[JokuJak]

Hahahahahhahahaaahahaahhaahahahahhahahahahahahahaa


:|

[GoAtankGo]

join a church, them fags have answers to everything... not that they make sense

btw, to all religious people, you are not necesarily fags, but the guys that claim to have all the answers and are with a church are fags ( or pedophiles)

ok im done for today.

[JokuJak]

You are both noobs, im want theories or w/e, 1 time i get its from my anus and the other tells me to join a fucken churge while i dont believe in anything when it comes to religions..

[BlueYaws]

e=mc˛ says that the universe has always been there.

[Neverside]

big bang

[Aridfox]

:sonny:

[XxSWATxX]

So does that mean like an orgy?



God waved his wand around and all this shit poppd up. Read a book.

[TiFsTrIfE]

Blasphemy

join a church, them fags have answers to everything... not that they make sense

btw, to all religious people, you are not necesarily fags, but the guys that claim to have all the answers and are with a church are fags ( or pedophiles)

ok im done for today.

[DkWoLF75]

Supposedly started from a small compact mass that is extremely dense. It expanded and grew through internal energy and eventually became the universe. Also known as the big bang. Kinda hard to believe how something can be created from nothing. Makes you wonder what was there before the mass? How does something suddenly appear from nothing? And what is the exact definition of nothing, would nothing be blank white space?a void? how can nothing be nothing? There still has to be something there.

[Forsythe]

One counter to that argument has been that it's possible that the universe has had an infinite past, and that many things could have caused the start of all things, not necessarily just one cause.

[Czigga]

God was lying on his back with a huge erection, pushed it down as hard as he could, and when he let it go...BOOM

the blast from his boner smashing against his belly created such force as to create solid matter from floating particles, utterly creating everything you see around you in one form or another.

[aaXwonXaa]

no idea how the universe got here, but i can tell u how it will end.

the universe is a closed system, meaning no energy can enter or leave. Therefor, the current energy in the unvirse is slowly disipating. The energy that was supposedly made by the "big bang" set the universe in motion, but, much like a dropped ball, the energy gets lower and lower everytime some is used. eventually the ball stops bouncing, and there is no energy left to make it move. The universe contains all the energy to propel the things in it. eventually, all that energy will be gone, and the universe will just stop. This is predicted to happen in 100s of billions of years. so were fine :D

and remember energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

[GoAtankGo]

Energy doesnt just disapear... a bouncing ball loses it's energy but that doesn't mean it vanishes it means the energy will go somewhere else, in another form.

[adaM]

^^ Correct, energy can not be destroyed, it just changes.

I'm with DK, it just doesn't seem.... right that there was 'nothing', its very hard to imagine.

[Piscinex]

well perhaps the universe pre-"big bang" was just a single simple particle, more simple than the simplest of particles we have discovered and that it continually cycles from extremely complex and voluminous to a singularity and back again. the theory of the big crunch is usually used to explain this theory.

[BlueYaws]

Do any of you actually know what e=mc˛ means? Energy=mass x Speed of light˛.
This means that mass can become energy and energy can become mass. Atomic bombs work by this principle. You lose a little mass and get a shitload of energy.

Anyway, I don't know how the big bang happened. Nobody does. Just wanted to teach.

[Forsythe]

^^ It's a myth that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

[adaM]

I believe it is true, it just changes, can you think of a way to destroy energy?

[BlueYaws]

Can you tell me what energy is?

[KeNTiSBaK]

First of all, chigga ur retarded.

Second, the fact that nuclear reactions cause mass to be lost does NOT violate the law of conservation of mass, the law states that mass is can not be created or destroyed in ORDINARY chemical reactions, and nuc reactions are not normal ;).

Third, omg yes the thought of the universe is perplexing....i mean.. it HAS to be contained in something right ?? it is unfathomable to have something that is infinite that is not contained in anything, it just dont make sense. How did it come from nothing? big bang? thats pretty half baked sounding to me...and if the universe isnt contained nowby anything, then if it was small before the big bang what contained it then ??? it had to have room to grow in something, and i personally find creationists the farthest off base. in anycase i really dont have the slightest clue and i only hope to find out the answers someday :\

[BlueYaws]

First of all, chigga ur retarded.

Second, the fact that nuclear reactions cause mass to be lost does NOT violate the law of conservation of mass, the law states that mass is can not be created or destroyed in ORDINARY chemical reactions, and nuc reactions are not normal ;).

Bullshit.


Third, omg yes the thought of the universe is perplexing....i mean.. it HAS to be contained in something right ?? it is unfathomable to have something that is infinite that is not contained in anything, it just dont make sense. How did it come from nothing? big bang? thats pretty half baked sounding to me...and if the universe isnt contained nowby anything, then if it was small before the big bang what contained it then ??? it had to have room to grow in something, and i personally find creationists the farthest off base. in anycase i really dont have the slightest clue and i only hope to find out the answers someday :\

The Big Bang does not mean the universe came from nothing. It simply explains the fact why our universe is expanding.

[aaXwonXaa]

the big bang says that a ball of dust and particles started condensing and condensing and it formed a sort of giant planet, then as it became to dense and kept on condensing, it exploded. the explosion set the universe in motion, creating the planets and stars that we know today. it doenst explain the creation of the universe, just how the planets came to be and how they became so spread out.

IMO this theory is very farfetched, possible, but very farfetched

[Sbutter]

your assuming the universe is an actual thing...space is nothing so how can create nothing? Now, the objects in the universe are believed by many to have been created from a single infinite mass. But where is this mass coming from? maybe from being collapsed (cycle), a great deity, or no one knows.

[DkWoLF75]

In reality, humans havent been to Mars yet, the university is infinitely bigger than our galaxy, I dont think humans can really say how the universe started. Maybe after you die you will find out, who knows.

[Czigga]

The Big Bang does not mean the universe came from nothing. It simply explains the fact why our universe is expanding.

I believe the question was "Where does the universe come from?"

And actually I believe that creationists have the most sound explanation logically. It goes by what Forsy said, that the notion that matter can not be created or destroyed is actually a myth. That being said, perhaps some all-powerful, or simply very powerful being created the big bang, or whatever the universe came from/started as.

And contrastingly, if it is in fact true that matter cannot be created or destroyed, then anti-creationists have no foundation for the molecules/energy that created the Big Bang to begin with.

[Prokopis]

Tsk, tsk...

Where do I start?

- Joku: You're an idiot.

- Kay: Lmfao @ Uranus, but sorry, the universe hasn't always been there. In fact it's about 5 billion years old. E=mc˛ doesn't mean "mass can become energy". Yes measuring core weight after a nuke exploding won't yield the same amount of matter, but just cause it's not here, it doesn't mean it's not anywhere (core fission -> neutrons flying around hitting other cores -> more neutrons flying, some away from it all -> self sustained chain reaction n' further neutrons escape to the great outdoors. See the problem already?). And even if in the great blast some heavier particles (neutrons/protons) did get destroyed and had their quarks separated, it's still mass I think.

- Bred: What did god weave to make his wand then? (Don't answer that :p)

- Dk: It's not that something was created out of nothing; that can't happen. Something came out of something else, namely a motionless, infinitely dense (and probably infinitely hot - not sure on that one though...), dimensionless singularity. There was no space around it and even if you theorized that there were, it would have been totally curved by its infinitely great gravitation. Concordantly there was no "before the mass", as there could be no time because of that either. Can't really think how that would work: a spaceless system? A time continuum maybe? And even then, how could you tell if there would be time if there'd be no way to tell or measure it? Such notions are absurd...
The nothing we "know" is the emptiness of space; void, as in space, but with no matter in it. But preuniversal nothing is something probably inconceivable by human beings' standards as we are 3 dimensional creatures living in a 3d world. Try imagining no dimensions, no really. What's your reference point?

- Forsy: Infinite past requires the presense of space infinitely along with that. As time moves forward (like it could do so in any other way...), more space is created. Reversing that in your mind should give you an image of how the size of space changes when moving towards the past. If it doesn't, I can tell you: it gets smaller and smaller. So assuming there's infinite time to back that up, where does that lead if not to a point-universe? And if you accept a dimensionless universal condition, how can you say there is a "before" that?

PS: "It's a myth that energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Try destroying energy; tell me what you came up with.

- Shay: You say no energy can enter or leave the universe. Enter from where? Leave to where? There's no other place but here. If there was, it would automatically be part of the universe, which makes the previous sentense right again. So if energy only stays here, how can it die? And even - for argument's sake - if it did and everything did stop out of this "loss of energy", wouldn't gravity between the various masses set them in motion again? Or did dynamic energy die along with kinetic, thermal, electric, chemical luminous and atomic? Or is it that along with the death of the energy conservation principle, all other universal attributes die as well? Like the 4 fundamental forces etc.?Dunno this whole theory of yours makes no sense to me :S...

Energy won't die man, don't worry :p.

- Pisc: What I said before about "before the big bang". And what big crunch? The universe isn't going to collapse on itself; that has been substantiated I believe.

- Kent: What I said about Dk and Forsy.

- Sbutter: "Where is this mass coming from?" We don't know.

- Czigga: If you want to believe god was the one that manifested that point/anomaly, I guess you can, but I don't see how that makes for a good religion, as god's use right after it went boom would still be null: everything can take care of itself.

[JokuJak]

How do you know the universe is everything then? maybe its just a galaxy of a galaxy of a galaxy of a universe,

and Maybe the universe shows humans wrong in the fact that we think everything has an beginning + an end.

IF the universe was made out of something there must be space around the universe :\

some1 said space is nothing, i would say space is space, you can move threw space..

[JokuJak]

- Joku: You're an idiot.




Why?

[Forsythe]

Wrong.

While you cannot create or destroy energy, what I meant to say is that energy is not stuck in the way it is. You can convert energy into matter (and vice versa). If you doubt this notion, please pick up a book on modern science and read it sometime, or you can check this out:
http://aci.mta.ca/Courses/Physics/4701/EText/EnergyMassEquivalence.html

"Infinite past requires the presense of space infinitely along with that."
-Says who? Why would space be a requirement for time to exist?

"As time moves forward (like it could do so in any other way...), more space is created. Reversing that in your mind should give you an image of how the size of space changes when moving towards the past. If it doesn't, I can tell you: it gets smaller and smaller."
-We could not know whether more space is created simply because time moves forward. No one should conclude this statement given our current knowledge.

"So assuming there's infinite time to back that up, where does that lead if not to a point-universe? And if you accept a dimensionless universal condition, how can you say there is a "before" that?"
-Despite the fact that you cannot prove that more space is created as time moves forward, if going back infinitely leads to a point-universe, the big bang still does not explain why a single point could spawn a universe full of different things.
Secondly, if it started at a single point of infinitely dense matter that is "motionless" which I will presume to mean "changeless" what sparked the first change? or first motion if you did not mean changeless?

"If you want to believe god was the one that manifested that point/anomaly, I guess you can, but I don't see how that makes for a good religion, as god's use right after it went boom would still be null: everything can take care of itself."
-If you assume that God exists and created the universe, regardless of whether he is useful or useless after creation does not support an agnostic or atheistic view in anyway. In fact, the God argument is a more defensible position when he is said to allow everything to work without hindrance from his will. The position held by religions becomes stronger just by assuming that God exists. Nietzche's views are massively arrogant, that's all.

[Neverside]

What if our universe is just some little experiment that we are a part of in somene elses something that we dont even know what to call it cause we have no idea of its existence?

[JokuJak]

We feel like this all is normall, space, the moon, your length, to eat..

maybe we are just a science project of an "normall" child (which is for our thoughts HUGE but for himself hes normall)

[Forsythe]

We have an infinite number of skeptical views we could "think of" - the matrix, big experiment, long dream, etc.

The real problem lies in whether we will completely rely on experience and observations (which still cannot disregard some views), or we can remain skeptical and base ideas on the scientific method, or we can believe in something we have no conclusive proof for like belief/faith (which is usually, but not always the same as people making up crackpot ideas).

[Prokopis]

How do I know the universe is everything? Because if there were "other universes" as you suggest, the immediately raised question would be "and where are they?". If you could answer that, then that would mean they'd belong in this same universe as we do, hence one universe in the end. But even if they did not and they had "their own space and time" or what other weird sci-fi explanation have you, you could still calim that all together they still make up for one total universe, as in a space-time continuum sum of individual space-time continuums. But do you really got to go there just to push a theory that maybe "there are other universes"? Cause it seems to me that the mentality behind this whole suggestion is just to "promote humility" or I dunno what else. I don't see why it's that big a deal to accept there's one universe when there are so many things in it. Universe is just a word which we use when we want to say everything, the whole, all in existance, the cosmos. You're saying "yeah, but except from everything, maybe there's more". Well maybe there's a number greater than infinity Joku, think about that one.

"and Maybe the universe shows humans wrong in the fact that we think everything has an beginning + an end."

I take it you mean that we may have misinterpreted the red shift phenomenon and may be mistakingly thinking that everything is moving away from everything else (cause as I explained before, accepting that and reversing it suggests pretty certainly that evrything was together in the beginning)? Nah, I'm pretty sure it's all moving away. I don't think it's humans' obsession (or whatever else) for everything to have a beginning an an end that's the driving force behind this big bang theory either; it's mostly astronimical facts.

IF the universe was made out of something there must be space around the universe

Erm, nope. Space is within the universe, as in the universe contains all including space.

some1 said space is nothing, i would say space is space, you can move threw space.

I think, that's the definition of space :O: you can move in/through/around it. But in everyday life, when we speak of space, we mostly say that meaning a place where there's not much of anything. Not entirely correct if you think we're drifting in space ourselves, but anyway...

PS: Lol. Why I think you're an idiot?






Nah, I'm not gonna tell you.

EDIT: Lol this post was brand new and still 3 posts behind. I hate time... :(

[JokuJak]

As i said, we think theres an end, theres a place were "space" should end..

[Forsythe]

I think what that what you guys mean by universe is becoming vague.

I think joku is thinking of the universe as just a larger version of a galaxy. That is, the multitudes of galaxies that we have mapped out or "think" we've mapped out.

Meanwhile, prok defines the universe as it truly is, the inclusion of all dimensions and galaxies and other such stuff, no matter how they are related in terms of space-time.

[JokuJak]

I think joku is thinking of the universe as just a larger version of a galaxy. That is, the multitudes of galaxies that we have mapped out or "think" we've mapped out.

exactly!

[Forsythe]

Well unfortunately, the universe is unlikely, or at least, not necessarily like that.

IMO, we could never say conclusively if we have mapped everything out.

[Prokopis]

I don't get it and your english doesn't help much either :\...

AS you said we think there's an end? Who's we? And yeah, there are probably ends all over the place; the universe isn't infinite, so frontier points have front row seats to the creation of even more space every passing instant. Problem is to get there you'd have to move way faster than light. Anyways, there are spatial ends (boundaries), as well as a temporal one.

Forsy, are you seriously advocating a time-only universe? And like I said, as time moves forward, the universe expands and space is created; I didn't say it was time that was doing it.

BTW, thanks for informing me that matter and energy are interchangeable ;). But as I was telling Kay, that equation doesn't state that "mass becomes energy"; all it does is describe what the measures are when it happens. Besides, ffs he was shouting that "e=mc˛ says that the universe has always been there.". You really want to defend that crackpot :p?

Also there really is no explanation as to why it happened; scientists are simply stating how it probably happened given the facts at hand. Yes a single anomaly probably exploded and sent everything flying creating space that way; it's an anomaly. And no, we don't know what made it blow, but looking at the big bang as an effect of some cause would get you making the same mistake as before, i.e. assuming there was time before that. I am not saying there is, so please don't ask me to guess what happened and caused da bom to blow.

PS: Lol at almighty god being there just to "allow" everything. And I guess all that god didn't like, just isn't around eh? It's all too convenient man :).

EDIT: Grrrr again 3 posts behind :@. That's it, I'm posting again tomorrow.

[JokuJak]

We = us humans.

And yeah, there are probably ends all over the place; the universe isn't infinite, so frontier points have front row seats to the creation of even more space every passing instant. Problem is to get there you'd have to move way faster than light. Anyways, there are spatial ends (boundaries), as well as a temporal one.

Emmm, so you are saying there are ends? which means theres NOTHING behind "the" end?

and we will probably move faster than light, just a matter of time

[Forsythe]

No, the defensible position behind God allowing everything to work on its own, is to allow a person's free will and that the "evils" of the world was there to build their character (soul-building).
Again, another explanation, but no proof, we don't know why it is like that. hence the requirement of religion to be a matter of faith. Note, this does not strengthen religion's position rationally, since faith by definition is irrational, it is a circular way of believing. But there is some merit to believing, we all do it at some point. And apart from all the philosophical, scientific and highly technical jugglery, we all go back to real life and realize that we all believe in something irrationally to some point or other. The difference is how far we are personally willing to do that.

Also, the weakening of the God argument by having the property of being an overly convenient explanation is open to personal judgement at this point. An explanation being convenient does not mean it is more false. We do not know that God was made up, and therefore, we cannot assume that a simple explanation implies God being false.

[BlueYaws]

We = us humans.



Emmm, so you are saying there are ends? which means theres NOTHING behind "the" end?

and we will probably move faster than light, just a matter of time


No. There are no ends. Maybe ends to matter but no real ends.

And no, we will never move faster than light. It's impossible.

[JokuJak]

Impossible?

As i said its just a matter of time, when u would of told to some1 in the year 500 after jesus that sometime we would be on the moon.. they would say thats impossible.

[PYMPTYPE]

No. There are no ends. Maybe ends to matter but no real ends.

And no, we will never move faster than light. It's impossible.

im pretty sure they have already made particles go faster than light. i know they were able to teleport some particles (scientists in Boston). also have you heard about that quantom stuff? i think eventually we will be able to make things go faster than light maybe not actually make us travel faster than light, light isnt that fast when you consider the size of the universe.

[aaXwonXaa]

what i mean by energy slowly fading is that in a closed system (the universe in this case) no energy can enter or leave. The laws of energy say it can neither be created, nor destroyed. It also says that engergy can be passed down from one source to another, but as it is passed down, its value decreases. So when something absorbs energy, it only takes in a certain percent. Like when a plant gets energy from the sun, the plant gets 10% of that energy. the cow eating that plant, gets 10% of the energy the plant absorbed. Then us, eating a cow, get 10% of the energy the cow got. Also, energy eventually disipates, like the ball, again. everything is moving and moving and moving, untill eventually there is no more energy to make it move. The earth is an open system. Energy enters from the sun and some is reflected back. The galaxy is an open system, but the universe is a closed system.

if u burn a fire in a closed container, the fire will burn untill there is nothing left to burn in the jar. then the fire will stop, because there is no energy to power the fire. if u open the jar, and put something flamable inside, the fire will continue to burn, because it is able to get energy from something. Then universe is a giant closed jar and everything in it is the fire. eventually the fire will die

[Forsythe]

No particles move at the speed of light since they have mass. And according to the current laws of physics, it is impossible to MOVE faster than the speed of light.
However, it may be possible in the future to DISPLACE objects between two points in space faster than the speed of light (we don't know for sure, obviously). Some wild ideas have been thought of like travelling through blackholes, folding space around spaceships, distorting time intervals(remember that the universe is space-time, not just space), etc.

[Apocalypse Void]

no idea how the universe got here, but i can tell u how it will end.

the universe is a closed system, meaning no energy can enter or leave. Therefor, the current energy in the unvirse is slowly disipating. The energy that was supposedly made by the "big bang" set the universe in motion, but, much like a dropped ball, the energy gets lower and lower everytime some is used. eventually the ball stops bouncing, and there is no energy left to make it move. The universe contains all the energy to propel the things in it. eventually, all that energy will be gone, and the universe will just stop. This is predicted to happen in 100s of billions of years. so were fine :D

and remember energy can be neither created nor destroyed.

Wrong

Take a look at the first Law of ThermoDynamics and you will see thaT you are incorrect. Or the Law of conservation of Energy. Both will tell you that the energy in the universe is constant

[aaXwonXaa]

that info came straight outa my AP bio book, which they use to teach at rutgers university....

[BlueYaws]

Well I just decided not to go to Rutgers University.

[Forsythe]

Mass-Energy is said to be conserved.

Energy is conserved individually in a closed system with no energy-matter conversion. However, there is energy-matter conversion in the universe and therefore energy will not always be completely conserved.

However, energy does not "get lower" everytime it is used. It's only converted to another form like heat, matter, or absorbed into an object. Energy would never be completely gone, it is more likely that there would be very little energy spread over a vast expanse of space - making it SEEM that there is no energy left.

[Chrono69x]

hey, i have nothing to say about this cause well...i really dont know. But i was thinkin...should this be in debate forum? or stay here?

it's a good topic, but i dont know if the right section was chose for it...

[Piscinex]

uh-oh forsy went into boring mode :D

[Forsythe]

More like pisc wants to blow me mode :P

[Prokopis]

^^ Mwahahaha, sch00led t3h n00blar :classic:.


No. There are no ends. Maybe ends to matter but no real ends.[...]
If you picture the universe as a baloon-shaped space-time continuum that is constanly expanding, you'd have to agree that any point at its "surface" can be considered an end and you'd thusly have an infinite amount of spatial universe ends.

Contrary to that, there is only one temporal end and that was around 5 billion years ago.

What does "mayby ends to matter" mean? Discovering our universe's fundamental building blocks?


[...]And no, we will never move faster than light. It's impossible.
Never is a pretty heavy word...

Kinda related. Dunno how I remembered it, but since I did :O.

"If an older scientist says that something's not possible, he's probably wrong.
If a young scientist claims that something is possible, he's probably right."

[Councilour]

Agreed, things can move faster than the speed of light
Imagine a system moving @ the speed of light and then something is expelled from that system, it will travel faster than the speed of light 4 a static observer (relativity)
BTW , Quazars move n times faster than light

[PYMPTYPE]

ok i'm not gonna get into this argument but i got this documentary about this that is perfect. its called "Nova the elegent universe" and it's made by PBS it is a 3-part documentary. the first part is about einsteins theories and shortcomings. the second is about string theory. the third is about "the eleventh dimension."

this documentary is very good i recommend it to anyone it's one of the best ones ever made about this subject and it's very new. i got it on avi file if anybody wants it also i think you can probably by it from PBS.com or maybe amazon/cdnow.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000ZG0TA/qid=1074272197/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-7201243-4944656?v=glance&s=dvd

[crabulyse]

Agreed, things can move faster than the speed of light
Imagine a system moving @ the speed of light and then something is expelled from that system, it will travel faster than the speed of light 4 a static observer (relativity)
BTW , Quazars move n times faster than light

I'm sorry but I have to say, you are still thinking in the Newtonian model of space and time.

Suppose you are in a speeding space ship and you shine a flashlight ahead. Relative to you, the light from the flashlight travels at the speed of light. A static observer outside the space ship sees the light travel at the same speed, THE speed of light. In Einstein's model, speed of light is always the same for any observer, hence the name "relativity".

See SpaceTime 101 (http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/st101.html).

[Prokopis]

^ rite thurrrr

[Forsythe]

There's a difference between what you can see, and what their relative speeds are.

Is Einstein saying that the observer will SEE the light moving the speed of light relative to him AND that the light is moving only at the speed of light relative to the observer?
OR
The observer will SEE the light moving the speed of light relative to him BUT the light is actually moving faster than the speed of light relative to the observer?

[crabulyse]

The fundamental thing is that light always travels at the same relative speed to any observer, it is counter-intuitive but scientific experiment had first observed this strange fact back when Newtonian physics dominated.

On sight, I have no clue... we can't actually see the photons moving but we can make a mental picture.

[dankiwi]

join a church, them fags have answers to everything... not that they make sense

btw, to all religious people, you are not necesarily fags, but the guys that claim to have all the answers and are with a church are fags ( or pedophiles)

ok im done for today.


haha i agree

[JokuJak]

1v1?

some splashed kiwi on heck wouldnt be bad
and chrono, u ruined my topic.

[crabulyse]

lol ya anthossney you are a punk

[Cow`]

Agreed, things can move faster than the speed of light
Imagine a system moving @ the speed of light and then something is expelled from that system, it will travel faster than the speed of light 4 a static observer (relativity)
BTW , Quazars move n times faster than light


Speed of dark moves faster than the speed of light :rambo:

[Alan Cresswell]

Does anyone know when Einstein graduated from crackpot to genius. Why does his Relativity always deliver mathematical absurdities?

Olinto de Pretto first used E=Mc^2 in 1903. Einstein died a failure with his Unification ideas. Who is the genius that made him one too?

The bloody laws of physics are wrong. Any fart can be a genius with the political spin of Thermodynamics. See http://www.thewebspert.com/cresswell/ . Its a bloody shocking story and for 40 years it buried me in its exquisite shit.

[Forsythe]

Give us some unbiased hard and conclusive data, and a check by pseudo-science finders and we'll see whether Mr. Cresswell has anything sensical to say.

[Apocalypse Void]

The Idea the existence can create itself is unfathomable, which is evidence of God.

[Czigga]

^^^^^Nice. :)

[Prokopis]

The Idea the existence can create itself is unfathomable, which is evidence of God.

Lol, so if any explanation or view seems "unfathomable" to the religious, it's automatically supportive of the existence of god to them, eh? That's real clever thinking right there man; you don't even have to have a case yourself. You just sit back and deem everything unfathomable, inconceivable, unimaginable, whatever.

Anyway, there might've been a point in discussing that, had anyone actually claimed the current scientific facts-driven theory was that everything just appeared or created itself.

[Forsythe]

Science is basing everything on the fact that life comes out of non-life, and that the big bang occurred on its own, through unknown reasons.

As for that supporting the existence of God, it does not.

[Ir0nClad]

Lol, so if any explanation or view seems "unfathomable" to the religious, it's automatically supportive of the existence of god to them, eh? That's real clever thinking right there man; you don't even have to have a case yourself. You just sit back and deem everything unfathomable, inconceivable, unimaginable, whatever.

Anyway, there might've been a point in discussing that, had anyone actually claimed the current scientific facts-driven theory was that everything just appeared or created itself.

God exsists. Jesus is the Son of God/man. The bible is true.

History, astronomy, and math all prove it.

http://bethlehemstar.net

It's a LONG read, so I will sum up if you don't care to look or do the research for yourself.

So to sum up:
Some math guru named Johannes Kepler (1500s) came up with a way, mathematically to look at the sky as it was at ANY point in history. Using these formulas (that all modern space agencies use today) he decided to check out the rumors about these signs that the bible talks about.

These signs are things like starts showing up at certain times, stopping at certain places, proving that Jesus is God. The bible gives these signs at least 500 years before his birth (proven by historic records of when the books of the bible were written, Daniel for example, was written 500 years before Jesus was born and predicted it exactly, not just some general statement)

Using the formulas without computers takes a LONG time and gives way to all sorts of possible errors, but now that computers are around and can EASILY computate stuff like that, it wasn't hard to find the star and other various astonomical signs that the bible talks about.

If you want all the evidence just roll on over to the site. There are some 1500 or so prophecies just about Jesus alone that all came to pass, there are more to come about our future too.

[Forsythe]

Jesus may have existed, but it doesn't say that he did those miracles, let alone that he did those miracles under the power of God.

[Ir0nClad]

Jesus may have existed, but it doesn't say that he did those miracles, let alone that he did those miracles under the power of God.

The bible said he did using the power of God.

So the question is the bible legit?

Well that's for everyone to decide on their own, but the evidence in the bethlehem star presentation alone is enough to conclude that something VERY profound happened when Jesus was born and died. The bible's prophecies came to life in Jesus, meaning that the rest of what the bible says (He did miracles) is true.

Take it for what its worth ;P

[Forsythe]

Uh, that's a huge assumption that is completely unproven.

The bible as an infallible story of history is not even widely thought of, let alone proven.

[Czigga]

Well actually the Bible is considered by far the most accurate representation of that period. However, I do agree that arguing over whether or not Jesus performed miracles will get us absolutely no where.

[Prokopis]

What period you talkin about here? Like 2000BC or later? Cause if you mean later, there are many documents, accounts and testimonies from known historians or other historical figures of mediterranean or Middle eastern civilizations which are considered to be a lot more accurate and truthful, so I probly wouldn't call the bible "by far the most accurate representation of that period".

Just a side-point though.

[Czigga]

If by accurate and truthful you mean no mentioning of "God" or miracles then I suppose you might consider yourself right. Other than that no other documents really disprove, or even attempt to disprove the Bible's accounts of the people and culture and methods of the time.

[Prokopis]

I'm talking about historians, I'm talking about documents and I also mentioned facts. For example, war logs and accounts, observations and notes of traveling men, ancient ppl's personal logs and whatever else they were writing then that's been recovered and translated in modern times. In any case, things that had nothing to do with religion most probably.

Also you didn't answer me if you were refering to ages like 2000BC or around the time of Christ.

[Czigga]

And they contradict the Bible how? Obviously when you're talking about religion there are going to be different points of view... I thought it was so obvious I wouldn't mention it.

The Bible is a religious text, obviously the mentionings of god and the paranormal are always going to be under debate. But there are other parts of it as well, such as who ruled when, who ruled where, battles that were fought, cultures of the time, people, etc. There isn't really much other texts from those days that are so readily available that discuss that time period FROM that period. And to answer your question I'm talking about in general. It's not like it was super accurate 1500BC and then everything was wrong 50 AD.

I'm not touting the Bible as word of Truth at all, all I'm saying is that it is still very valuable historically outside of its religious theme.

[KillMachine]

Uh, that's a huge assumption that is completely unproven.

The bible as an infallible story of history is not even widely thought of, let alone proven.

Entirely correct. As for Ir0nClad's horoscopes-don't believe everything you read online. Everyone has an agenda. And Joku, I'm fairly sure that the greatest minds the Earth has ever had could answer your question with certainty. As for me, I've resigned myself to the idea that humans are, to put it simply, too stupid to find out if God(s) truly exists or not.

[Forsythe]

But in the same token, you have to exercise the possibility of something greater than ourselves and of our being. There's something to be said about what's beyond us.

[KillMachine]

Yeah, there's something to be said. But giving definitive answers? No...

[Forsythe]

Do you always act only when you know the complete facts behind a decision?

Of course not.

Not having definitive answers should not always mean inaction, or no attention towards something.

[Apocalypse Void]

Lol, so if any explanation or view seems "unfathomable" to the religious, it's automatically supportive of the existence of god to them, eh? That's real clever thinking right there man; you don't even have to have a case yourself. You just sit back and deem everything unfathomable, inconceivable, unimaginable, whatever.

Anyway, there might've been a point in discussing that, had anyone actually claimed the current scientific facts-driven theory was that everything just appeared or created itself.

Dont put words in my mouth, all i was saying was that this example of a contradiction within big bang and other crap is addressed in a theory of God.

[Apocalypse Void]

Uh, that's a huge assumption that is completely unproven.

The bible as an infallible story of history is not even widely thought of, let alone proven.

If you are reffering to the instance of the Star, and the alignment of (Jupiter i think? Sorry i forgot) but yes that has been proven

[Forsythe]

No I wasn't referring to the star. Especially when I said plainly that I referred to the bible not being a infallible story of history. I did not even imply talking about the star.

[Kiron]

Yeah, anyways, on a lighter note... Just htinking about where the universe came from is mind boggling. It had to come somewhere, did it not? and even in big bang theory, there was still stuff there that needed creating, so either it was always there, which if you try and put on a time line is maddening, or it was created by a superior being. And then, if it was, where did HE come from:| it's a vicious cycle.

[Blee]

Yeah, anyways, on a lighter note... Just htinking about where the universe came from is mind boggling. It had to come somewhere, did it not? and even in big bang theory, there was still stuff there that needed creating, so either it was always there, which if you try and put on a time line is maddening, or it was created by a superior being. And then, if it was, where did HE come from:| it's a vicious cycle.
Pre-existance... O_o

[aXKOTRT]

I read about 2-3 pages of the topic before the majority of posts dissucssing previous posts or going over things that have already been disscussed before.

the answer is simple

How can a human mind possibly take on the answer when they cannot even imagine certain things such as the idea of "nothing" were just not smart enough whether we will ever be or not isnt even worth thinking about yet. and as for science it's the same as history things are always being prooved wrong discovered or argued against so who is to say that any equation can decide this kind of question the idea that we can solve this question any time soon on our own is compeltely far fetched

and for those of you who are confused if we cannot understand the opposite sex how can we possibly answer this question ?

[Forsythe]

because you don't need to know the opposite sex to understand that

[aXKOTRT]

Thats very true, but it was a example used to show how far away from getting the answer to the original question ;)

[Forsythe]

Well, that's an overused, and inexplicably fallacious argument. A question requires clearing up of relevant background assumptions before the actual question can be answered. You're not the first to use that in the site, I've seen it many times before.

Just like we cannot say that the sun is bright if we have different definition of what the word bright means. And before that is understood, we must assume that both sides are using the english definition of bright, etc.

[aXKOTRT]

Yes because like me they are also correct, and it's also a way of saying it without using a theasarus.

;)

[Forsythe]

I just showed you why it was a fallacious argument, then you just say the opposite :s

It's like proving to someone how 1+1 =2 and then they just say 1+1 = 3.

[aXKOTRT]

It's similar i agree.

[Czigga]

Pwned