Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33
  1. #11  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance on the hoof again young Mr.Jones ?Perhaps you're a Deist and not a real Athiest ? Speaking from your vast experience Jones where do you think all of the matter came from ?
    Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Senior Ape Articulate_Ape's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NJ, Exit Only
    Posts
    8,006
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    I'm not disapointed at all .It just reinforces my opinion of you as a bullshit artist !
    Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(
    "The efforts of the government alone will never be enough. In the end the people must choose and the people must help themselves" ~ JFK; from his famous inauguration speech (What Democrats sounded like before today's neo-Liberals hijacked that party)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Articulate_Ape View Post
    Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(
    I offered to let him go to the Dome with it. We'll see if he does.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by marv View Post
    The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

    Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.
    the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

    people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

    also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!
    Willie is regressing again,Next comes the Goos and Gahh .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

    people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

    also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)
    There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !
    No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

    That is the THEORY.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    It's possible that our entire conception of the primary constitants of the universe are wrong.

    Space, Time, Matter. the reality is there are giant gaping holes in the explanations of these phenomenon.

    if we accept space, time, and matter as a given, along with the 4 fundamental forces which act within and on those first three, then the Big Bang is the best we have.

    However, if space, time, and matter are actually something totally different than we've been thinking for the last century, then it could totally revolutionize our understanding of the universe.

    Any serious investigation into space, time, and matter is filled with paradoxes, inconsistences, and general weirdness when you get into the real nitty gritty. physicists end up making ever more complex, ever more elaborate theories to account for these issues, but these might be an example of Ptolemization. - This is a reference to the ancient astronomy Ptolomy, who was working on a geocentric model of the universe, and kept noticing the orbital patterns of the planets had weird inconsistencies to them, at times they even appered to change direction multiple times in their orbits.

    Because Ptolomy was absolutely certain that the Earth was the center of the universe, and because he was measuring these weird inconsistencies in the data, he had to account for it the only way he knew how: by making his geocentric model way more complex to account for the odd motions.

    He kept the earth at the center, but added epicycles to the orbits of the planets, so that they moved in little circles within the path of the larger circle of their orbit, sort of like those old toys where you use your pencil within two circles to make patterns:

    The resulting orbital model was something like this:



    this is clearly WAY more complex and unnecessarily elaborate, given our knowledge of the relatively simple orbits of our Heliocentric Solar System.


    The problem was his inability to look past his assumptions, and what was needed was a Copernican Revolution. From the perspective of a Sun-Centered solar system, the changing directions of the planets in the sky is easily accounted for by the relatively different speeds of the planets within their orbit, which pass each other and loop back around when viewed from earth.


    This may be where we are today in modern physics with regards to the big questions of space, time, and matter. Every month it seems physicists are coming up with incredibly complex seemingly insane theories of the universe to account for the mathematical oddities and logical paradoxes that occur within our current system.

    We might need a Copernican Revolution of sorts that totally re-thinks the very basic fundamental consituents of reality. It would be something extrordinarily radical, but could offer far more simple insight into whatever this reality is.
    Last edited by Wei Wu Wei; 05-16-2011 at 10:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !
    hence the use of quotes there ;)

    some people argue that the universe may be cyclical, in which case there would have been a before, in some form.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Our widdle friend. Wei Wu Wei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,414
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

    That is the THEORY.
    at that point, all of the laws of physics break down, including the function of space-time. even if we say there was a singularity to begin with, there would have been no passage of time whatsoever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •