[Ronin]

Well I thought he managed to reason this by looking at things at a quantum level where particles can blink in and out of existence seemingly at random. It's possible that the same could be said for the universe. But no, it's not concrete.

[♥Coraline♥]

...

[Fox]

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

that's enough material for quantum fluctuation to start another big bang.

I don't really see where you are getting that from.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

as far as being able to see material 13.8 billion light years in every direction - meaning that visible space is at a minimum 27.6 billion light years across - and the universe only being 13.8 billion years old-'cause that's how fast light travels

Actually the radius of observable universe is of about 46 billion light years.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

space spreads at twice the speed of light and has been doing so since the creation of the universe - this obviously has the flaw that if space travels faster than light - we'd never see any heavenly bodies that are traveling away from us (i.e. everything outside our galactic cluster)
basing the age of the universe off of the light we can see is inaccurate - probably, but you'd think that every few years new galactic bodies would "wink" in existence as their light finally reaches us.

I believe we are actually using the cosmic microwave background to measure how much the universe has expanded, which also provides an answer of what's the size of the universe.

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 03:07 PM, said:

where did the singularity come from in the first place

We don't know the answer.

[Kyanos]

All the answers are in the golden eggs.

[Lunick]

[Forge]

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

I don't really see where you are getting that from.

you don't get what i mean about quantum fluctuations and the theory that it may have been what caused the big bang, but the state of the singularity prevents that?
If you had a big patch of "relatively" empty space with nothing but a bunch of sub-atomic particles floating around for eternity, then quantum fluctuation is still possible and a Poincaré recurrence is then possible - a new big bang.

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Actually the radius of observable universe is of about 46 billion light years.

that's because there's a difference between "visible universe" which is what i was using and "observable universe" which is what you just now injected.
i used the term observe to indicate looking in a specific direction, but i used visible for the distance of material we can see

Fox, on 06 February 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

I believe we are actually using the cosmic microwave background to measure how much the universe has expanded, which also provides an answer of what's the size of the universe.

the measured CMBR indicates the the observable universe is the 92 billion light year diameter you said. i thought using the numbers i did for the visible universe was already crazy enough - now figure out how the universe radiation expanded 92 billion light years in only 13.8 billion years

Ronan, on 06 February 2014 - 03:21 PM, said:

Well I thought he managed to reason this by looking at things at a quantum level where particles can blink in and out of existence seemingly at random. It's possible that the same could be said for the universe. But no, it's not concrete.

particles at quantum level and quantum fluctuations to create "temporary particle pairs and additional energy" needed to break the laws of conservation and ignite the big bang still require space, time, motion, and other particles. Supposedly none of those existed in the singularity. no particles - no fluctuations, no space - no fluctuations, no motion - no fluctuations, etc. No fluctuations, no big bang - if you go off Hawking's theory it's obviously flawed at several points.

[Fox]

Even mathematics is flawed. We heard that 2 + 2 = 4, but why or how?

[Forge]

lol@Lunick

now you know how i feel when people come to this thread and go on for pages about computer equipment, computer games, smoke weed gifs, movie actors, politics, anything the commander talks about, etc., etc.

[Lunick]

[Master Fibbles]

I finished the first season of House of Cards. Those bastards ended leaving us kind of hanging. That is why people pay for Netflix: to not be left hanging at the end of episodes or seasons.

[Hendricks266]

Forge, on 06 February 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

smoke weed gifs

[Stabs]

have you ever thought all these tools we use to get this information are fundamentally flawed and designed to give us the answer we want.

don't get me wrong i am no religious kook but iam skeptical of the science community and all the walls in place for something to be even listened too, i prefer people more like hutchinsun, fringe "scientist" more engineers who just go out and do stuff and not sit there trying to explain things we can never prove in this time period at least.

[Fox]

Wasn't for Einstein "sitting there trying to explain things we can never prove" we wouldn't have nuclear energy, for example.

[Stabs]

yeah that is true but i think there is too much talk not enough do and prove this days, the leaps they made back then were staggering with undeniable truth and someone was bound to come upon that theory and proved it sooner or later.

[Fox]

You are the one talking too much, sir. There is a lot being made of theoretical physics today, even if you don't know of.

Lasers, transistors, ultraprecise clocks or thermometers, quantum cryptography, randomness generators and so on. It's all thanks to quantum mechanics.

[Forge]

the only waste of time going on is the minor slice of the scientific community trying to prove/disprove the existence of a higher power.
a) there are better things to waste brainpower on
b ) if there was a higher power and it didn't want to reveal itself, no one's going to find it no matter how much time and resources are thrown at it
c) there are better things to waste brainpower on

there are many "knowns" and "unknowns" if the multitudes of scientific fields like quantum physics, microbiology, astrophysics, etc., etc., etc....
it does get annoying when some of these researches feel it necessary to throw in "maybe God and/or no need for a god" into their findings.
theory and theology mix like oil and water

[Ronin]

Forge, on 07 February 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

the only waste of time going on is the minor slice of the scientific community trying to prove/disprove the existence of a higher power.

I want to know the answer, either way it would be awesome and slightly scary.

I find the idea of an afterlife disturbing. But that's just me.

Best possible outcome, there is a god and it does care, and it does matter what we do in life so all the fuckers get fucked in hell.

Sadly I see no reason as of yet for that to be the case.

[Kathy]

Ronan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

Best possible outcome, there is a god and it does care, and it does matter what we do in life so all the fuckers get fucked in hell.

Depends on definition of a "fucker" in the eyes of god(s).

[Forge]

Ronan, on 07 February 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

I want to know the answer, either way it would be awesome and slightly scary.

I find the idea of an afterlife disturbing. But that's just me.

Best possible outcome, there is a god and it does care, and it does matter what we do in life so all the fuckers get fucked in hell.

Sadly I see no reason as of yet for that to be the case.

i don't mind scientific research directly aimed at proving/disproving supreme beings

i do get irritated when "legitimate" theoretical fields get saturated with religious connotations and no solid proof one way or the other.

i.e. there is no need for a god for the big bang to occur because maybe quantum blah blah blah....you have no proof, you're just guessing. submit your hypothetical theory and leave god out of it. come back and report when you stop guessing.
i.e. there has to be a god because the astronomical chances of the conditions that created earth then having life spring up out of nothing blah blah blah....you're guessing. do more research about the chances of an earthlike planet existing elsewhere and the conditions it takes to turn amino acids into living things. including god in these theories is distracting and unnecessary.

[Sangman]

I'm not sure about deities but I believe in reincarnation to some extent. I don't believe that my soul in the biblical sense will be passed on to a new body but I find it difficult to imagine an endless sleep that would be death. On some level I believe that after death "I" would have the same "consciousness" as I do now in another body, minus any kind of memory or ability and shit.

Probably bull but who knows.

[Fox]

Kathy, on 07 February 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Depends on definition of a "fucker" in the eyes of god(s).

Adulterous women and homosexuals.

Sangman, on 07 February 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

but I find it difficult to imagine an endless sleep that would be death

You are not supposed to be able to imagine it.

Imagination is defined as the ability to simulate your senses such as sight without receiving actual sensorial information (I.e. you can see a person face without said person being in front of you). Furthermore, people who, for example, lost the ability to see a color due to a brain injury are also incapable of imagining said color.

Thus you can't imagine yourself in a situation where your senses or brain are no longer functioning.

[Engel220]

Sangman, on 07 February 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

I'm not sure about deities but I believe in reincarnation to some extent. I don't believe that my soul in the biblical sense will be passed on to a new body but I find it difficult to imagine an endless sleep that would be death. On some level I believe that after death "I" would have the same "consciousness" as I do now in another body, minus any kind of memory or ability and shit.

Probably bull but who knows.

Personally, I think this is the great mystery beyond physics, religion and space. People call space the 'Final Frontier' because to this day we're still learning about it, there's so many more things yet to be found and identified, but I'd say that what happens to us after we die is the real mystery. Is Heaven or Hell real, or is it a state of mind brought on by our own beliefs after we die? Do we transfer our life energy (I know, it sounds like a hippie thing to say but it's the best description I have in mind right now) to another body and start again, or do we just stare at utter blackness for all eternity? Or do we simply live on earth as the spirits of ourselves from the past life we led seeing things happen in front of us but not being seen or heard? These are the questions that need answering somehow, and people talking about near-death experiences and "White lights" isn't going to cut the mustard for me.

[Sangman]

Fox, on 07 February 2014 - 11:39 AM, said:

Thus you can't imagine yourself in a situation where your senses or brain are no longer functioning.

By this definition people should be able to imagine sleeping because both your senses and your brain continue to function during it.

[Kathy]

Nothing happens, you just die. Lots of things 'die' in the universe. Why should it be different for us? Do we have any factual indication that something else happens other than biological processes?

[Sangman]

Kathy, on 07 February 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Do we have any factual indication that something else happens other than biological processes?

No. Hence the term "belief" and shit.

[Fox]

Sangman, on 07 February 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

By this definition people should be able to imagine sleeping because both your senses and your brain continue to function during it.

Sleep itself is defined by altered consciousness and sensorial inhibition, and that's why you can't imagine it.

[Master Fibbles]

For the record, the guy who proposed the Big Bang Theory believed in God.

[Jimmy]

In this thread:

[Forge]

Darwin's Origin of Species 6th edition:

"There is grandeur in this [natural selection] view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved".

He was disillusioned with christianity later in life because of conflicting religions, why a god would make a world full of pain in order to survive, the problem of evil conflict. He described himself as an agnostic though he never lost belief that there was some kind of supreme being

[Radar]

LOL. Great picture Jimmy. Exactly what I was thinking. "iam enlightening by my own intellgences" just gets me, haha.

btw, 2000 reps. Dude, what the heck. I tip my fedora um hat, yes hat...