REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Praying?!? Sorry pal, God's busy with other worlds for the next few centuries, can I take a message?

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Friday, July 10, 2009 07:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 5493
PAGE 1 of 3

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:23 AM

CHRISISALL


The Flying Spaghetti Monster is here with us now.
Why pledge allegiance to a god that's "too busy" for us at the moment?




The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:26 AM

BYTEMITE


*Happily eating noodles*

*Smote by marinara sauce*

Noo! So delicious! Why have you turned on me, oh god?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:34 AM

CHRISISALL




Do not mock your most hallowed meal; that is his flesh you eat.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:38 AM

BYTEMITE


Eating god's flesh and drinking his blood gives me infinite cosmic energy!

...and gas.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:42 AM

CHRISISALL


Go easy on the holy garlic.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:55 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is here with us now.



Sorry, I got nothing on the subject... unless the subject is pictures and monsters:

Here's a pic of Buffy The Cookie Monster Slayer:




Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com Now available on your iPhone


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:26 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 9:27 AM

CHRISISALL




The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:24 AM

KAREL

Flying on duct tape and a damaged registry.


Got touched by His Noodly Appendage?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:48 PM

ANTIMASON


you mock us, for believing in an intelligent designer.. so where did we come from?

primates? and what did they evolve from? show me a fossil of its evolutionary predecessor..




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:57 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
you mock us, for believing in an intelligent designer.. so where did we come from?

primates? and what did they evolve from? show me a fossil of its evolutionary predecessor..









Now show me a fossil of your "intelligent designer". Heck, show me a fossil of your baby Jesus!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:25 PM

ANTIMASON


how about a link? as far as i can tell, it still looks like a primate.

primates are mammals are they not? so.. was there a single common ancestor among mammals? or did they evolve from, say.. reptiles..?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:51 PM

OUT2THEBLACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
you mock us, for believing in an intelligent designer.. so where did we come from?

primates? and what did they evolve from? show me a fossil of its evolutionary predecessor..






Now show me a fossil of your "intelligent designer".



Here's the fossil of the Designer , or more accurately , the 'fossil' energy that constitutes the Designer's 'signature' :
" The following image just shows the reduced map (i.e., both the dipole and Galactic emission subtracted). The cosmic microwave background fluctuations are extremely faint, only one part in 100,000 compared to the 2.73 degree Kelvin average temperature of the radiation field. The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early universe. The density ripples are believed to have given rise to the structures that populate the universe today: clusters of galaxies and vast regions devoid of galaxies..."


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:06 PM

BYTEMITE


I like quantum mechanics, because it makes singularities impossible.

Expand, collapse, expand, collapse!

It's like a roller coaster. Or maybe a slinky. A slinky coaster!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:08 PM

ANTIMASON


its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe. kind of like expecting the nuke dropped on hiroshima to result in a much more improved and ordered landscape

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:19 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!


Prayer: If you're not getting a response then you're doign it wrong.

The correct way to pray: "[Insert deity name], please teach me how to solve [insert problem here]." Not "gimme gimme gimme".

This way, even if there's no god, or God is busy and went on permanent vacation (Deism of the Founding Fathers), your own brain (organic supercomputer) will start working overtime to solve your own problems.

Prayer also broadcasts TV and radio waves to your friends, family, associates and strangers (ESP), who might then offer help. Ask Dr Tesla if radio transmission through the ether and Earth is real or not.

Try this experiment: Pick a person you love, and wait till they go to sleep, perhaps when you see REM. Think "I love you". If your loved one immediately says "I love you" out loud, your experiment proving "prayer" was a success. That worked on my wife, but then she's Native American.

US miliary special forces use ESP (prayer) in reverse, by blanking their minds when they sneak up on somebody to kill, so ESP won't tip them off. Also works for athletes to fake out the competition.

What I find most bizarre is some "Christians" (not His real name) believe God (not His real name) is so weak that He can't control time, and can't work with time, and can't count over about 5,000 years. If God is really God, why can't He create Creation using evolution over 30-billion years, or 30-quad-super-duper-zillion eons? It seems horribly insulting that Christians think God is too weak or stupid to do that.

The Council of Nicea totally warped Christianity in 400AD, by merging with paganism as mind control for the Roman Empire. So many Christian "beliefs" are pagan (Xmas, Easter). Not that there's anything wrong with pagan, since that's ALL our ancestors.

It's also bizarre that atheists can't see the genius in every living creature (DNA, born with survival instincts like knowing how to fly), and in every speck of dust (molecules, atoms, quarks). DNA also appears to be a radio transmitter/receiver (100 monkey syndrome), that may well talk to God, or at least ESP.

Science proves that gravity waves connect all matter with every other atom in the universe, at instananeous speed. Sounds like an all-powerful God taking care of us in real-time.

Even evolution theory says each atom in every rock or human has existed unchanged for 30-billion years (except for radioactive decay), which sounds alot like "eternal life" to me. For the past 60 years, evolutionists believe in the Big Bang origin of the universe, with instantaneous creation of all matter, which sounds like God's Creation to me.

The Babylonian non-Semitic "jews" are the real origin of atheism (Communism worships Big Brother as god), as a tool to divide and conquer the goyim nations (Christian and pagan). Worked like a lucky charm.

Since human recorded history is so short, it's entirely possible that God did arrive relatively recently, at least to sow the DNA genonomes. With all the crap that's going on, like Monsanto's GMO foods destroying the planet, it's entirely possible He might just come back soon and spank some ass.

Whether God exists or not, religion has benefits for survival, sanity and happiness of the species. Which is why the NWO wants to kill it. Kosher Old Testament says don't eat pork or bottom feeders, which is great medical advice to not get worms today. Jewish NWO don't eat pork, while designing bioweapons and 1,000s of poisons to kill YOU.

Life after life: I was killed by a dentist whose minimum-wage helper forgot to turn on oxygen while using nitrous. I did the "out of body" thing, bouncing off the ceiling, looking down on my body as they tried to rescucitate me (terrified that my dad is a lawyer specialized in medical malpractice). I've never had that feeling before or since, despite concussions, coma and other near-death disasters.

If God designed that feeling (happiness with no fear) into all living things during death, that was a stroke of genius and compassion. How does evolution design that euphoria (mere oxygen deprivation) into "survival of the fittest" when there's no hope of procreation? Or do those going to Hell have a different feeling?

False argument: "If God is real He'd never let anybody die." Life is a miracle, death is restful sleep. Or would you rather be a rock?

And why belittle a particular belief/non-belief, when you'll probably change your mind 10 times anyway?

And if church is so bad, why are there more whores in church than any bar? I know this for a fact, since I used to go to church with a prostitute, who looked really hot in white. No wonder Jesus did the same (not His real name).

If Islam is so bad, why do you get as many wives as you can afford?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:20 PM

BYTEMITE




Gaze into the infinite, and know the unknowable.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:31 PM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe. kind of like expecting the nuke dropped on hiroshima to result in a much more improved and ordered landscape



Actually, the universe has decreased in order since the start of this cycle. It's a necessary consequence of collapse->expansion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 4:49 PM

ANTIMASON


hmm... well, i dont doubt it (not to get too biblical on ya, but..)

Quote:

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. Romans 8:18-23 "



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:04 PM

BYTEMITE


I'm willing to concede that however the universe may have started, it's a heckuva neat place.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:18 PM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe.



Tell me about it. When you first see it, when you begin to understand how it could actually happen - it's friggin' amazing! Sublimely beautiful to boot.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe.



Tell me about it. When you first see it, when you begin to understand how it could actually happen - it's friggin' amazing! Sublimely beautiful to boot.

SergeantX

"It's a cold and it's a broken hallelujah"



And even more so when you realize the randomness of it, and the fact that it doesn't need a "creator" or "designer" to exist - that's just people trying to anthropomorphize and assign human traits to something natural. The universe doesn't have design, and it doesn't have morals, no matter how much you might want it to.

I might as well point to everything I don't fully understand and yell "Aliens did this! They HAD TO!" or "Ghosts! Haunts! Spirits! Faeries and Sprites!" The fact that we don't fully understand how it all works doesn't make a bit of difference to the universe- it just keeps humming along; our understanding doesn't mean that something is unable to be understood. What you call "god" I call "physics".

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 10:13 PM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I like quantum mechanics, because it makes singularities impossible.


I don't think it does. And if it did that would be fairly compelling evidence that QM is wrong.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:00 AM

JONGSSTRAW


Hubble's Deep Space multi-day exposures have given us the best models to estimate the age of the Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe.











Once you can understand the scope of these models, you see how structured everything really is. Only thing missing is Niska's skyplex.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:03 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now show me a fossil of your "intelligent designer". Heck, show me a fossil of your baby Jesus!


Can't...they're both still alive.

(Laughs cause Kwicko's going to hell...in a handbasket made of dinosaur bones.)

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:11 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by piratenews:
The correct way to pray: "[Insert deity name], please teach me how to solve [insert problem here]." Not "gimme gimme gimme".


And don't forget to mention Nazi-Jews, death squads, and the Queen.

PN's nightly prayer: "Oh Not-Jew God, please teach me to be a better Jew hater...and by "Jew" I mean everyone in the entire world but me, protect me from death squads who give traffic tickets and read my water meter, keep my Holy Tin Foil Hat blessed with your power, bring forth a woman who wont laugh at me when I ask her out, and save us all from Barrack Obama and Walt Disney's frozen zombie robots, Amen."

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:12 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm willing to concede that however the universe may have started, it's a heckuva neat place.


Have you seen Detroit...frankly, I expect more.

Although I have yet to see a poorly designed fjord.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:23 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Now show me a fossil of your "intelligent designer". Heck, show me a fossil of your baby Jesus!


Can't...they're both still alive.

(Laughs cause Kwicko's going to hell...in a handbasket made of dinosaur bones.)

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.



Laughs 'cause Hero's going to Easter Bunny...


Hey, it makes as much sense as your statement.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:16 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I like quantum mechanics, because it makes singularities impossible.


I don't think it does. And if it did that would be fairly compelling evidence that QM is wrong.



Three words: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

It's why people now believe that particles can escape from a black hole... Because of the uncertainty of any particle's position, there is a chance that they might suddenly exist outside the black hole. The information of the particle is lost, of course, you don't get whole atoms, but rather protons, neutrons, electrons, or antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons. And you often get emissions in matter/anti-matter virtual pairs that quickly annihilate each other.

A blackhole is supposed to be a singularity, and yet, if there is uncertainty whether the amount of mass that's in that infinitely small space is IN that infinitely small space, then it's not quite a singularity, is it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_Radiation

Now, I do think the Uncertainty Principle is more something of a placeholder for when we figure out a more accurate way than wave functions to predict both position AND velocity of quantum particles, but all the same, quantum particles seem to exhibit some very strange behaviour and will be difficult to predict. Even if we discover how to predict exact positions in time around an atom, there's still a tendency for particles to not be where they're supposed to be.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:06 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
The information of the particle is lost, of course, you don't get whole atoms, but rather protons, neutrons, electrons, or antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons. And you often get emissions in matter/anti-matter virtual pairs that quickly annihilate each other.

A blackhole is supposed to be a singularity, and yet, if there is uncertainty whether the infinite amount of mass that's in that infinitely small space is IN that infinitely small space, then it's not quite a singularity, is it?


You seem to be missing a vital point. The level of uncertainty is based on the Particles wavelength, which diminishes with mass. Black Holes are governed by Quantum Mechanical effects at the Singularity (at least in theory, it's not like anyone has gone into one to check), but they also have rather a lot of mass.

The Wavelength of an electron is barely longer than it's circumference, which is why they tend to act more like particles than waves most of the time. A Black Hole has infinite mass, therefore an infinitely short wavelength, so the level of uncertainty is lower. In fact it's probably more likely that your body will Quantum tunnel through a brick wall than a Black Hole will Quantum Tunnel to a new state.

The result is that only particles of Electron size and smaller are really bothered about the uncertainty principle. By the time you're talking about Positrons, Neutrons, Atoms and up, they're much more predictable.

The equation to find a particles wavelength is De Broglie's wavelength:
λ = h/m*u

Where:
λ is the Wavelength
h is Plancks constant
m is the particles mass
and u is the particles speed
EDIT:
Actually always c.

The result of dividing any number by infinity should be self evident.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:31 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe.

Isn't it though.
Quote:

kind of like expecting the nuke dropped on hiroshima to result in a much more improved and ordered landscape
Oversimplification, thy name is Antimason.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:39 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
You seem to be missing a vital point. The level of uncertainty is based on the Particles wavelength, which diminishes with mass. Black Holes are governed by Quantum Mechanical effects at the Singularity (at least in theory, it's not like anyone has gone into one to check), but they also have rather a lot of mass.

The Wavelength of an electron is barely longer than it's circumference, which is why they tend to act more like particles than waves most of the time. A Black Hole has infinite mass, therefore an infinitely short wavelength, so the level of uncertainty is lower. In fact it's probably more likely that your body will Quantum tunnel through a brick wall than a Black Hole will Quantum Tunnel to a new state.

The equation to find a particles wavelength is De Broglie's wavelength:
λ = h/m*u

Where:
λ is the Wavelength
h is Plancks constant
m is the particles mass
and u is the particles speed

The result of dividing any number by infinity should be self evident.



When you're talking about particles escaping, you aren't talking about the entire sum of the black hole's mass escaping at the same time. You're talking about particles here and there. Particles which have a small mass.

The effect of evaporation would be more pronounced in micro black holes.

And the fact remains, if you fuzz the dimensions of a point in three-dimensional space, it's no longer a point. You can still have a very high near infinite density because your volume is still going to be very small, but a black hole doesn't have to have a singularity to define it so long as it's gravitational pull is still strong enough to prevent light from escaping. And so long as light can't escape, meaning outside observers can't see within and time stops, you still have an event horizon.

Singularities signify a breakdown in general relativity, and are best addressed by quantum mechanics, where it is suggested that the singularities are not, in fact, singularities. A point smudged by quantum mechanical processes may still ACT like a singularity, because we may be talking about VERY little smudging indeed, but I argue that technically, by definition, because of whatever degree of smudging there IS, it is not one.

I don't know if this would answer your equation, but it's been hypothesized that particles escaping a black hole would have to have an infinite wavelength.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:05 AM

CITIZEN


Yeah, that's Hawking Radiation, and yes, Black Holes can evaporate, and Micro Black Holes evaporate almost straight away (planck second time scales). But Black Holes evaporating is dependent on Singularities existing to begin with.
Quote:

And the fact remains, if you fuzz the dimensions of a point in three-dimensional space, it's no longer a point. You can still have a very high near infinite density, but a black hole doesn't have to have a singularity to define it so long as it's gravitational pull is still strong enough to prevent light from escaping.

You're misinterpreting what's meant about not being sure of it's location. A particle has a specific location, we just don't know where that is, so we think of it as a 'probability cloud'.

But nevertheless, a singularities mass is infinite, that means that it doesn't form a probability cloud because it's wave length is infinitely small. So it does exist within a finite point.
Quote:

Singularities signify a breakdown in general relativity, and are best addressed by quantum mechanics, where it is suggested that the singularities are not, in fact, singularities.

This rather sounds like your own interpretation of the consequences of Quantum Mechanics, and respectfully I think your interpretation is incorrect.

A particle does, in fact occupy a distinct location in the Universe, it's just because of it's wave function you can't be sure of where it is or where it's going to be at the same time. But this uncertainty doesn't apply to a singularity, because it has infinite, or even very large, mass. That means you're not 'fuzzing' the dimensions of a singularity.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:20 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by antimason:
its quite a concept, that the undirected, chaotic EXPLOSION of the big bang, could create the incomprehensible ORDER and design of the universe.



Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe. The universe has about as much order and design as a cloud has a face. If you're looking to see it as ordered, you'll no doubt find it so, simply by ignoring any data that don't fit your preconceived conclusion. That's very typical of ideology, and the complete antithesis of scientific inquiry.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:26 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's very typical of ideology, and the complete antithesis of scientific inquiry.


There's a lot of big words there; we're not but humble pirates...


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:32 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe. The universe has about as much order and design as a cloud has a face. If you're looking to see it as ordered, you'll no doubt find it so, simply by ignoring any data that don't fit your preconceived conclusion. That's very typical of ideology, and the complete antithesis of scientific inquiry.


There's order in the universe, the same as there's order in the arrangements of London Streets. The lie is comparing the order of London streets to those of a planned city. That is the order of things disparately finding equilibrium, and someone actually artificially creating it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:33 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe.


Ignore the platypus and you'll see it all make sense for you.

"...egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal"
H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:44 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
The lie is comparing the order of London streets to those of a planned city.





Thanks Cit, that had me goin'.


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:54 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

You're misinterpreting what's meant about not being sure of it's location. A particle has a specific location, we just don't know where that is, so we think of it as a 'probability cloud'.

But nevertheless, a singularities mass is infinite, that means that it doesn't form a probability cloud because it's wave length is infinitely small. So it does exist within a finite point.



A singularity's DENSITY is infinite, not it's mass. It's not the mass part of the situation you're proposing that's causing the singularity, it's the VOLUME. A point has no volume. A point is a singularity. Put mass in it, and density = mass/volume = number/zero = infinity.

If mass inside of a point is not in fact within the point because of quantum mechanical processes...

And I still think you're misinterpretting that equation of yours. The particles in question in the blackhole are not the sum mass of the black hole, but in this case would be whatever particles are emitted. Even if I'm mistaken (and I'll probably go look that up), black holes do not have infinite mass, so if you plug in a 3 solar mass black hole (or larger) into that equation, you'd return a non-zero number. A small number, maybe, very high energy particle, but a number none-the-less.

No one knows whether particles in a black hole have a wavelength, but the emitted ones do. If quantum tunneling, that governs Hawking radiation, requires for a particle entering and emerging from a barrier to have a wavelength, then particles in the blackhole must have a wavelength. And if they have a wavelength, they have a probability cloud... And if you have a probablity cloud for a particle in a singularity, you are fuzzing the singularity by making the volume no longer a defined point. The singularity is no longer one volumeless point in space. It begins to have a volume that all of it's particles could occur in.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe.


Ignore the platypus and you'll see it all make sense for you.

"...egg-laying, venomous, duck-billed, beaver-tailed, otter-footed mammal"
H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.



Sorry - ignoring uncomfortable truths that don't easily fit into a category isn't in my nature. I'm neither religious or Republican.

What is it about the platypus that has you confused? Is it the egg laying? Aren't there reptiles who give birth to live young, and others that lay eggs? Ditto amphibians and fish. Is it the beaver tail, which is actually a Platypus tail, or the otter feet, which are really only SIMILAR to otter feet? Is it the venom? Don't other orders have both venomous and non-venomous members? Is it the "bill"? Would you lump oxen and chameleons in the same group, since both have "horns"?

Granted, the platypus is an odd critter, but I don't find any one particular thing about it that points to any kind of creator or designer, unless you're talking about a very, very, VERY stoned one.



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:02 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thing is, I don't see ANY "order" or "design" to the universe. The universe has about as much order and design as a cloud has a face. If you're looking to see it as ordered, you'll no doubt find it so, simply by ignoring any data that don't fit your preconceived conclusion. That's very typical of ideology, and the complete antithesis of scientific inquiry.


There's order in the universe, the same as there's order in the arrangements of London Streets. The lie is comparing the order of London streets to those of a planned city. That is the order of things disparately finding equilibrium, and someone actually artificially creating it.



Thanks for clarifying, Cit. Yeah, there IS a certain "order" in certain aspects of the universe, at least to our way of thinking. Same as there's "order" to the arrangement of a starfish's legs, or a tree's branches. The fact that we see a kind of "order" there, or that such things follow laws of nature or physics, doesn't mean that they have a designer, though.

I find the whole "intelligent designer" concept a weak-minded cop-out. It's like Newton saying, "Hey, something just bonked me on me gulliver! I'll call it The God Force, and be done with it." It's like the old cartoon about doing highly complex math problems...



Sure, it makes it EASIER, but it doesn't actually help us explain or understand anything. It's a cheap way of saying, "My brain hurts" and not thinking any more.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:06 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
A singularity's DENSITY is infinite, not it's mass. It's not the mass part of the situation you're proposing that's causing the singularity, it's the VOLUME. A point has no volume. A point is a singularity.


Yeah, you're right. But it still has a stars mass. I beg a late night, an early morning and a heat wave.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
If mass inside of a point is not in fact within the point because of quantum mechanical processes...


It still has a stars mass which means that it won't have a probability cloud for the singularity.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I still think you're misinterpretting that equation of yours. The particles in question in the blackhole are not the sum mass of the black hole, but in this case would be whatever particles are emitted.


So? I'm not talking about the emitted radiation, I'm talking about the singularity. The singularity still has plenty of mass to mean that it has a negligible wave length, and so will occupy a specific point for the same reason your body does.

You said Singularities can't exist because they can't have a fixed point in space. That's not true, it's a function of a misunderstanding of QM effects. Singularities are massive but small, they are subject to QM, but at the same time they have a to all intents and purposes non-existent wave length because of their huge mass.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
No one knows whether particles in a black hole have a wavelength, but the emitted ones do.


Sorry misread initially.

If Black Holes experience Quantum Effects at the Singularity, which is your basis for saying that Singularities can't exist, then there has to be wavelengths at work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:12 AM

BYTEMITE


Yes, and I just said no one knows whether particles in a BLACK HOLE have a wave length... Which you have been arguing that they don't. EDIT: Looks like you fixed your post before I got here, but just keeping this up anyway. EDIT 2: Noticed and acknowledged!

I'm arguing that the particles do have wavelengths. If you plug a non-infinite number into the mass for that equation of yours, even if it's a BIG number like 3 solar masses (depending on HOW that equation is used, I don't have the context here), then the number is not zero. Only an infinite mass would make for zero wavelength.

So long as there's some wavelength, there's a possibility for some wander around the singularity... Which I say smudges it in three dimensions.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:17 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yes, and I just said no one knows whether particles in a BLACK HOLE have a wave length... Which you have been arguing that they don't.


I edited my post.
Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
I'm arguing that they do. Like I edited up above... If you plug a non-infinite number into the mass for that equation of yours, even if it's a BIG number like 3 solar masses (depending on HOW that equation is used, I don't have the context here), then the number is not zero. Only an infinite mass would make for zero wavelength.


You might be talking about the particles in a black hole, I am, have always been, and still am talking about the singularity. I have said this very plainly a number of times. I have made no mention of the wavelengths of particles inside a black hole, not once.

BTW, YOU have a wavelength. It's just due to your mass it's too small to have any effect, and a singularity has a mass many times larger than yours. The Singularity might have a wavelength, it's still too small to give it a probability cloud, which is what I said earlier anyway. Plus, a probability cloud says we don't know exactly where it is, NOT that it doesn't occupy a specific point. So either way you cut it, it doesn't deny it is a singularity.

It's entirely your interpretation that says singularities can't exist in QM, yours and no one elses.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:20 AM

BYTEMITE


Actually, I got this from Stephen Hawkings... He makes a similar argument in regards to the Big Bang in The Universe in a Nutshell, which is why I brought this up... And why I was rambling with giddy abandon about "expansion and collapse" earlier in the thread. Hawkings, in the 1960s was known for being a firm supporter of an expansion-only universe, but recently changed his mind on these very grounds.

And yeah, noticed your edit, I edited to acknowledge your edit. And maybe I'll edit to acknowledge you've acknowledged I noticed and edited to acknowledge your edit.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:22 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Actually, I got this from Stephen Hawkings... He makes a similar argument in regards to the Big Bang in The Universe in a Nutshell, which is why I brought this up... And why I was rambling with giddy abandon about "expansion and collapse" earlier in the thread.


Could you quote Stephen Hawking saying Singularities don't exist perhaps?

EDIT:
I ran the numbers for three solar masses. The wavelength is 3.70421867×10^-73. Planck's length is ~1.616252×10^−35, more than double that. So the wavelength is zero for all intents and purposes.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:38 AM

BYTEMITE


I'll have to dig out Universe in a Nutshell, but I'll try to find you something.

I don't think he's ever said specifically that singularities don't exist, as I recall he only makes the suggestion that black holes and the Big Bang weren't singularities.

So my "no singularities" stance, if it is that, is my own, but it's based on arguments that two of the most important cosmological features thought to be singularities may not be. And if the Big Bang isn't a singularity, and black holes aren't singularities, I can't think of much that could be considered such. Especially if the same quantum mechanical effects are at work.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:51 AM

RIPWASH


Okay . . . back on topic people...

The FSM . . .

At first I thought that was something you made up, Chris, but apparently not LOL Guess yer not as creative as I thought you were

At any rate . . .

I get the distinct impression that every now and then the FSM will catch guys oggling his meatballs and he has to say, "HEY! My eyes are up here, pal."

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:51 AM

BYTEMITE


Here's something that's LIKE what you ask for...

Quote:

Yang-Mills theory is an extension of Maxwell theory that describes interactions in two other forces called the weak and strong nuclear forces. However, ground state fluctuations have a much more serious effect in a quantum theory of gravity. Again, each wavelength would have a ground state energy. Since there is no limit to how short the wavelengths of the Maxwell field can be, there are an infinite number of different wavelengths in any region of spacetime and an infinite amount of ground state energy. Because energy density is, like matter, a source of gravity, this infinite energy density ought to mean there is enough gravitational attraction in the universe to curl spacetime into a single point, which obviously hasn’t happened.
~The Universe in a Nutshell, page 46.



I'll have to keep looking for other (better) examples.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:00 AM

CITIZEN


I'd be surprised if he did say such a thing. Hawking once lost a bet that Singularities 'exist' only within Black Holes (his position), when computer models showed naked singularities were theoretically possible. Hell, it was Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose who came up with the Big Bang from a singularity theory. So in fact it would be Hawking saying his entire life's work is bullshit. I suspect such a statement would be big news.

Anyway, I don't see any reason why QM effects, even if they had the effect you say would negate a singularity. In fact the singularity of a rotating black hole is already known to not be a single point but a 'disc'.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Tue, April 16, 2024 19:53 - 794 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, April 16, 2024 19:46 - 6239 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, April 16, 2024 17:10 - 3523 posts
Elections; 2024
Tue, April 16, 2024 16:31 - 2251 posts
I agree with everything you said, but don't tell anyone I said that
Tue, April 16, 2024 12:42 - 14 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Tue, April 16, 2024 02:04 - 504 posts
Dow Nearing 30K. Time For You To Jump Off?
Mon, April 15, 2024 21:24 - 106 posts
I'm surprised there's not an inflation thread yet
Mon, April 15, 2024 18:39 - 738 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Mon, April 15, 2024 17:54 - 366 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:32 - 18 posts
Have you guys been paying attention to the squatter situation in NYC? It's just escelated.
Mon, April 15, 2024 15:24 - 5 posts
As Palestinians pushes for statehood, Israel finds itself more isolated
Mon, April 15, 2024 13:44 - 284 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL