Spaghettification is a real word…

crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Spaghettification is a real word…

First off, as my first post I need to make clear that my name mocks Kirk Cameron’s evidence or lack of evidence for evolution.

I won’t start the evolution rant but jump into my point.

I am not an atheist for now. And I don’t believe in cloud factories either. For now, I logically conclude in a creator who started the process, not from scratch but from itch.

For a creator to start the process it would have had to create time. Time is necessary for matter to exists because actions and the movements of electrons around a nucleus happen in time. No time. No movement. No matter.

Then this being, after establishing a timeline, created a vacuum in which to place this matter. Only now Inside of this vacuum on the newly established timeline the “big bang” could have occurred.

To use the argument that because we have a watch we have watchmaker is ridiculous. I logically conclude that the creation of time, vacuum, matter, is far greater than the rearrangement of simple elements or even matter and can’t even be compared to Mr. Timex. I have to believe in a being who created time itself. If a creator stepped out of the eternal to create a timeline, I find it easier to believe it has the intelligence to create a physical world.

The next question in the atheist’s handbook is who created the creator, right?

We stupid theists (or deists) say everything that exists has a creator, which we are then slapped down (and rightly so) with a cloud factories God and all that jazz.

The only answer I know is this and this only: If the creator created time, then it, the creator, has no beginning. The creator being does NOT exists on our timeline. He exists outside of our timeline. Naturally he would have to be eternal, correct?. Only those things which exist on a timeline have a beginning and an end. Those which exists outside of that timeline have no beginning or end. No beginning, no creation, no creator. The creator of time would not have a creator. I hope I haven’t oversimplified it for my college dropout mentality.

Please answer me on this. If I can’t get a rational response I will have to run with this and have to start looking for the best overview of a God which for now seems more and more like the asshole God of the Hebrew Torah.

My only hope is that everyone is as open minded as myself and comments on my assumptions not spelling or grammar.


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome crocaduck. I love

Welcome crocaduck. I love the name.


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Why does there have to be a

Why does there have to be a creator? Why can't we just say "we don't know where everything comes from, yet."

If there was a "big bang" there does not have to be a "big banger". The creation of the universe could be similar to the earth's water cycle and the matter that makes up the universe could be much, much older than the 13.5 billion years our universe has existed.

 No? Consider this. It is a common theory that a black hole crushes all matter into a singularity. Now, a singularity is essensially the compression of matter into a dense, single point. What did the universe theoretically start out as? A dense, single point. See the cycle that may be happening?

I don't understand physics on a scale like this, myself, but this is just one of many possibilities of the universe. We may never know exactly but it certainly doesn't mean that a creator created or ever existed at all.

Well thought-out though, I'm sure someone else around here will have a better, well thought out arguement. I'm being very overgeneral wish an idea that is not basic by any means. I just don't want to go into something like this without having the facts. I did want to respond to your post, however, because I love the crocoduck! 

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum,

Welcome to the forum, crocaduck.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums.

Welcome to the forums.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Icebergin wrote:

Icebergin wrote:

Why does there have to be a creator? Why can't we just say "we don't know where everything comes from, yet."

This would be accepting ignorance and not responding rationally. I hope this won't be the average response on this forum.

Icebergin wrote:

If there was a "big bang" there does not have to be a "big banger". The creation of the universe could be similar to the earth's water cycle and the matter that makes up the universe could be much, much older than the 13.5 billion years our universe has existed.

Actions require a timeline in which to exist.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
delete this

delete this


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
delete this

delete this


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
How can you say it's

How can you say it's accepting ignorance? We don't know where everything comes from yet, we are working on it.

Also, I am well below the average debater here out of my own lack of knowledge on a subject like this. My studies have been in history and art, but I love science. But nothing I said is irrational, but I am speaking out of a bit of ignorance on such a topic. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.

I thought I had made this clear, and I will try and make it more clear to you next time, crocaduck.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
Icebergin wrote:  No?

Icebergin wrote:

 No? Consider this. It is a common theory that a black hole crushes all matter into a singularity. Now, a singularity is essensially the compression of matter into a dense, single point. What did the universe theoretically start out as? A dense, single point. See the cycle that may be happening?

That's it.  All that matter we can see going into black holes is building up to the point where it explodes and becomes another universe on whatever is on the other side of the black hole.  I love it!  It seems more plausable then the invisable man theory to me.  I just might have to use that in the future.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Actions require a timeline

Actions require a timeline in which to exist.


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: Actions

crocaduck wrote:
Actions require a timeline in which to exist.


How is there not a time line? Here.

Step 1: Matter is sucked up by black hole
Step 2: Matter is crushed and condensed into a singularity by gravity
Step 3: Matter builds up to the point of bursting.
Step 4: Boom.
Step 5: Matter now expands into "the other side of the black hole/another dimension/another universe/wherever"

I fail to see what you are trying to get at. I'm sure that whatever I'm proposing has probably been debunked by science, but it makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than an invisible sky-daddy. I'm no scientist, I'm a graphic designer so once again, my understanding of astrophysics isn't my strong point in the very least.

A one liner does not a debate make, Mr. Crocaduck. Elaborate, perhaps?

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The blackhole dillusion?

For a creator to start the process he would have had to create time. He would have to make a timeline for space matter blackholes to exist. I am starting from itch here not scratch. I belive in a creator who made time itself. Your step one was "Step 1: Matter is sucked up by black hole." Where the heck dd the black hole come from and the matter which was sucked by it.


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
We could go around in

We could go around in circles, but I will say that I don't know where a black hole comes from. But we do know they exist. Science is working on that. Can time be created? I think that time is just something that "exists".

Also, by your same reasoning, time had to exist for a creator to exist to start time. Placing a mystical creator is selling short the amazing thing that our universe is.

crocaduck wrote:
For a creator to start the process he would have had to create time. He would have to make a timeline for space matter blackholes to exist.


Prove it.

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: "Step 1:

crocaduck wrote:
"Step 1: Matter is sucked up by black hole." Where the heck dd the black hole come from and the matter which was sucked by it.
Just like the matter that is being sucked from our universe into black holes, the matter that went into the black hole that created our universe would have come from a previous universe, which also came from a previous universe.  Time wouldn't have started for each universe until their big bang happened, but time would have been going for quite some time in the previous universe.  Since we're very limited in what we can currently study, there would be no way to know how many universes had been created prior to ours, but this could theoretically have been going on for trillions of trillions of trillions of years or more.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
That said a whole lot of

That said a whole lot of nothing. You know that right? Your talking about a line with two arrows at the end. Your saying there is no beginning to anything just universe to universe?


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Icebergin I didn't

Sorry Icebergin I didn't see your "Prove It" post.

Very well thought out. I will post later after I recover from the headache you gave me.

"Also, by your same reasoning, time had to exist for a creator to exist to start time. Placing a mystical creator is selling short the amazing thing that our universe is."

Very well thought out...


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I look forward to reading

I look forward to reading your response.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: For a

crocaduck wrote:
For a creator to start the process he would have had to create time. He would have to make a timeline for space matter blackholes to exist. I am starting from itch here not scratch. I belive in a creator who made time itself. Your step one was "Step 1: Matter is sucked up by black hole." Where the heck dd the black hole come from and the matter which was sucked by it.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't time a man made concept?  I thought it was simply a tool used for measurement.  Could you please expand on this and your concept of how it ties to an original creator?


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"Correct me if I am wrong,

"Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't time a man made concept?  I thought it was simply a tool used for measurement. "

Yes, absolutely.  What I had tried to do (and not succeeded) was make time a vessel in which we all exist. By making it a tangible container I was trying to say that only an intelligent creator created this vessel (time) and then everything within that vessel. I don’t think I can prove that scientifically (or philosophically).

I am really glad I jumped in this post head first because I am intrigued about the black hole / big bang theory. I read a lot about them in Wikipedia which cites a lot of well sourced materials.

They way I understand it is as follows…

After matter is sucked in they go through a singularity where there the gravitational force reaches infinity. Matter that makes it through the singularity is spaghettified. Yeah, spaghettification is a real word…

How does this work with the black hole expelling matter from universe to universe?

This is all really very fascinating to me because we didn’t actually find black holes until 2000 CE.

 

 


Mattness
Mattness's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I really recommend this

I really recommend this great post by Gnophilist in the Science section of the RRS forum! http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/6944

 

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life. - Immanuel Kant


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: After

crocaduck wrote:

After matter is sucked in they go through a singularity where there the gravitational force reaches infinity. Matter that makes it through the singularity is spaghettified. Yeah, spaghettification is a real word…

How does this work with the black hole expelling matter from universe to universe?

I read somewhere that it is theorized that when matter is being pulled into a black hole that matter smears, yet to the matter it stays whole.  I didn't read to indeptly about this so I don't fully understand it, but it stated if you have two poeple, one watching the black hole and one being pulled into the black hole, that the one watching would see the one being pulled literally smear across the event horizon, while the person being pulled in would perceive themselves as whole and the person watching would look like a smear.  I don't know how this works nor how this would affect a niverse to universe to  universe theory, but now I'm going to have to research this to try to better understand it.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: For a

crocaduck wrote:
For a creator to start the process he would have had to create time. He would have to make a timeline for space matter blackholes to exist. I am starting from itch here not scratch. I belive in a creator who made time itself. Your step one was "Step 1: Matter is sucked up by black hole." Where the heck dd the black hole come from and the matter which was sucked by it.

Black hole is caused by gravity when it brings to much matter together, it colapses in on itself. Creating a black hole. Then more matter gets sucked in until it creates a big bang after gaining a certain amount of mass known as critical mass.(The big bang we know of had 185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff compacted into a millionth the size of a photon area) 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"The big bang we know of

"The big bang we know of had 185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff compacted into a millionth the size of a photon area"

I like the word know there. That's nice.

I suppose now would be a good time to say that I "blaspheme" the idea of 185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff compacted into a millionth the size of a photon area.

Of course you could say; "...thats science..." and believe it blindly but that sounds to religious, though, right?


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: "The big

crocaduck wrote:

"The big bang we know of had 185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff compacted into a millionth the size of a photon area"

I like the word know there. That's nice.

I suppose now would be a good time to say that I "blaspheme" the idea of 185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff compacted into a millionth the size of a photon area.

Of course you could say; "...thats science..." and believe it blindly but that sounds to religious, though, right?

Well, atleast we have evidence supporting our theories.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Describe the evidence. It

Describe the evidence. It is conjecture at best. Even O.J. would be aquitted with this evidence. What we do see is in or actually outide of black holes is Spaghettification.

According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity".

The singularity in a non-rotating, uncharged black hole is a point, in other words it has zero length, width and height.

0 means 0... not "185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff".

Am I totally off here? Help me out.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: According

crocaduck wrote:

According to general relativity, a black hole's mass is entirely compressed into a region with zero volume, which means its density and gravitational pull are infinite, and so is the curvature of space-time which it causes. These infinite values cause most physical equations, including those of general relativity, to stop working at the center of a black hole. So physicists call the zero-volume, infinitely dense region at the center of a black hole a "singularity".

The singularity in a non-rotating, uncharged black hole is a point, in other words it has zero length, width and height.

0 means 0... not "185 billion galaxies worth of the stuff".

Am I totally off here? Help me out.

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so when you take 185 billion galaxies worth of stuff and compress it down into a singularity with virtually no size, that's some serious power building up.  Could you imagine how much force is required to do that?  Then when it gets to a point that it can't handle anymore more pressure, I would assume it would have to go....BANG, a really really BIG BANG.


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
"I would assume it would

"I would assume it would have to go....BANG, a really really BIG BANG."

 Key word: Assume.

If this matter builds up and there is no white hole, then where does the matter and the black hole itself come from. If the matter doesn't shoot out to another universe to univers to universe then we are back to square 1, or "0".

I have got to say this is all very interesting.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: "I would

crocaduck wrote:

"I would assume it would have to go....BANG, a really really BIG BANG."

 Key word: Assume.

Yeah, you got me, I assume.  But, I'm not a scientist, I couldn't begin to tell you the physics behind the big bang theory, but I'm not trying to talk to you as a scientist, I'm trying to talk to you has an intelligent layperson.  I've used a pressure cooker before, I've seen what happened when pressure builds up, and I've also seen differences of small amounts of pressure being released and large amounts of pressure being released.  I've just never seen anything with as much pressure as we're talking about, but based on my own observations in life, I chose to say a big bang.  On the other hand, have you seen anything in your observations of life that would contradict the theory that that much matter being put under that much pressure would do anything other than go boom?


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Sure, we all no what

Sure, we all no what happens when 185 billions of anything get in a small room.

But, don't forget to respond to my second blather:

"If this matter builds up and there is no white hole, then where does the matter and the black hole itself come from. If the matter doesn't shoot out to another universe to univers to universe then we are back to square 1, or "0"."

I am asking where the pressure cooker and the beef stroganoff which goes in the pressure cooker came/comes from?

The fact that a universe such as ours can explode on to the scene already in it's intermediate state gives some creedence to a "young" earth mentality.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: "If this

crocaduck wrote:

"If this matter builds up and there is no white hole, then where does the matter and the black hole itself come from. If the matter doesn't shoot out to another universe to univers to universe then we are back to square 1, or "0"."

 

I'm actually not sure what you're trying to say here.  I don't know what a white hole is suppose to be.  I'm still sticking with after the bang it starts a new universe so I don't have an answer as to where it goes if it doesnt.

Quote:

I am asking where the pressure cooker and the beef stroganoff which goes in the pressure cooker came/comes from?

I think that's already been answered in previous posts

Quote:
The fact that a universe such as ours can explode on to the scene already in it's intermediate state gives some creedence to a "young" earth mentality.
No one has ever said that the big bang created the earth as it is, nor any part of the universe as it is today.  It was nothing but molton hot peices of matter that spread out just like a normal explosion, then peices started to clump together as things have been proven to do in space, then cooled down, while other clumps of gas has continued to be very hot.  Then these clumps banged into each other, some smaller peices causing craters on the larger peices and some combining to make larger peices.  I could go on, but I think you can get what I'm talking about.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5850
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The matter-energy content

The matter-energy content of 'our' observable Universe may well sum to zero or more likely a quantum-level twitch:

To quote from gnophilist in his thread on the Big Bang:

What about the conservation of energy then? We have free energy and we have spacetime, how is energy conserved? Simply put, our observations to date seem to indicate the warping of spacetime (gravity) as described by general relativity has a negative energy which precisely cancels out the existent matter and energy in the universe. If such is the case (which I believe is the currently accepted hypothesis), then the quantum act at the beginning of the universe merely converted energy into different forms, that is, the net energy of the universe is still zero, and the law of conservation of energy is upheld.

The Big Bang certainly does not have the Universe 'exploding' into existence in some state that would be anything like what we see now - it was extremely small, totally filled with primordia, incredibly hot plasma. It then expanded and the matter and energy we now are familiar with 'condensed out ' as it cooled, so your description is not very accurate.

You need to re-read what gnophilist wrote in that thread, which you have already been to I see.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Thank you all for your well

Thank you all for your well thought out comments.


Arletta
Arletta's picture
Posts: 118
Joined: 2007-04-27
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote:Thank you

crocaduck wrote:
Thank you all for your well thought out comments.
You're welcome.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry I did not think

I'm sorry I did not think you would care so much if I corrected you without going into detail. The estimates(Yes I know your going to do the annoying ray/kirk thing and go "key word: estimates" or key word to anything) of our observable universe is 185 billion light years accross. It actually contains around 200 billion or more galaxies. Our galaxy is not that big, and still contains over 100 billion stars itself. Our sun is also not big at all. There is also planets, black holes(Which are hundreds of times more massive then stars) etc in galaxies. Some galaxies hold trillions of stars.

 

Now, as for a singularity, scientists have calculated that gravity would have such an effect on matter that when it collapsed it would colapse into a space no bigger then a millionth the size of a photon. However they do not know if the amount of matter has an effect on it's size. It is theorized that different black holes could be bigger or smaller depending on the matter in it. However for energy a black hole encompases it could never get bigger then the size of a photon.

 

Matter, and energy can not be created, nor destroyed. Only changed(matter to energy, energy to matter). This means if matter exists(Which it does) it would of existed forever.

 

Gravity is caused by matter, so gravity would also of existed forever. When gravity pulls stuff in, it creates a singularity. As we know matter in a black hole spins(We know this from x-ray jets) meaning all the matter in the big bang singularity was also spining. We know the more friction, the more thermal energy(Heat). Compacting more matter in a small space, then spining it would cause great ammount of heat.

 

Thermal energy is caused do to vibrations in atoms, the faster the vibrations, the hotter it is, it also gets larger in volume. When atoms reach critical heat(When thermal vibrations reach the speed of light, at around 1.4*10^32 degrees kelvin) every single atom would grow rapidly and colapse on itself creating a singularity on it's own. Before the big bang happen the thermal vibrations would of reached this limit, all atoms would cause a great deal of preasure all over trying to grow rapidly and all matter does this at the same time, ripping apart and breaking free of gravity and almost instantly when it broke free of the singularity causing a massive great expansion(big bang) it cooled, but still was being thrown out.

 

As for dark energy/matter it is a after effect of the big bang which is pushing matter out faster and faster. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Wow. Excellent post James! I

Wow. Excellent post James! I feel like I'm in science class all over again.

Fascinating!


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Icebergin wrote: Wow.

Icebergin wrote:
Wow. Excellent post James! I feel like I'm in science class all over again.

Fascinating!

Thanks. However the big bang is shrouded in mystery itself, really this is the "best guess". It has more evidence like the structure of the universe do to a great expansion could of only happened similiar to this. Black holes also give us a great deal of insite onto how this universe formed.

 

As for maximum thermal heat, I would really want to know if this is the maximum heat, it's a bit higher, or different types of matter affect it. Thermal Critical Limit would have a great deal of effect on the big bang, a lot of scientists are trying to see if it does happen(Math proves it does, but they still need to replicate it to confirm it) but that would require creating something at those tempetures, and containing something like that is not like containing atoms. For one if it is right, and atoms with thermal vibrations at the speed of light do infinitly try to expand, that means it could destroy the planet instantly, and can not be contained. Even the heat being let our would cause a great deal of problems.

 

Thing is, no matter how much evidence there is for something, the theists never agree with it.

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
This is starting to sound

This is starting to sound like religious back talk.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: This is

crocaduck wrote:

This is starting to sound like religious back talk.

How so?

Scientists proved matter existed forever, same with energy.(If matter can not be created, and exists, it existed forever, same with energy)

 

Problem is, our big bang we can only accuritly say without a doubt what happened up to 1 planck second after the big bang. Before that we know what must of happened to create the universe as it is, but can not witness, or test it.

 

The only possible way to test it, would be to replicate it(Which scientists are doing) or observe it(Another universe begining? Highly unlikely we are to see it). 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


crocaduck
Theist
crocaduck's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
More religious talk...

More religious talk... "Scientists proved matter existed forever..." how, what, really??

That idea may be the best we have now but lets not say proven in the world of theory.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
crocaduck wrote: More

crocaduck wrote:

More religious talk... "Scientists proved matter existed forever..." how, what, really??

That idea may be the best we have now but lets not say proven in the world of theory.

Your right! It's not in the world of theory! How smart of you!

 

It's in the world of law however. 1st law of thermodynamics, matter can not be created, nor destroyed. What does that mean? If something can not be created, it either always existed, or never will. Since matter exists, it must of existed forever. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!