Originally posted by The OmegaThat was really good
Imperial_Samurai> What do you mean by accurate or certain? Do you mean, how certain are we of quantum-stuff? Lasers, electron-microscopes, MRI-images from hospital-scanners, di-odes and transistors<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>through quantum-principles. So I’d say we are certain of quantum-principles.See, the thing about Big Bang deals with an as of yet unsolved mystery of science: How does gravity<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=work&id=4';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> work </a>on the smallest scales in the Universe (such as, inside a black hole or… at the be-ginning of the Universe).
We see the Universe expand (as it should, according to Einstein, whose equations predicted this, before it was known), so if we “rewind” the Universe like a movie, everything must at one point have been together. If we also rewind physics, so to speak, everything fits with observa-tions and collected<a onMouseOver="window.status='' ; return true;" onMouseOut="window.status='';" oncontextmenu="window.status=''; return true;" onclick="location.href='http://www.enhancemysearch.com/admin/results.php?q=data&id=2';return false;" href="" TITLE="More Info..."> data </a>(such as the cosmic Microwave background – a sort of echo from the Big Bang)… up until a tiny fraction of a fraction of a millisecond after Big Bang. We can’t go beyond that time back to time 00:00, because we still don’t understand every aspect of gravity.
We need quantum gravity, to understand gravity at the quantum-scale like we’ve done with electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear-forces (Which in turn gave us the possibil-ity to manipulate these forces).
So I (and I AM a scientist, a high-energy physicist) would say we’re 99,99999 certain of the Big Bang (the remaining 0,000000001 percent is not as much due to not thinking the Big Bang happened, but because quantum gravity may make a twist on the actual event from the time 00:00, to that tiny split-second after).Clickclick> Ah, but there is lightyears between believing some ONE created, and that quan-tum-physics created.
To understand how something can emerges from NOTHING 1+(-1)=0. So something and an equal amount of it’s opposite amounts to NOTHING.
Now – that is possible in quantum mechanics. A photon can create an electron and a positron.
So, from nothing you can get matter and an equal amount of anti-matter. You may even break the laws of conservation of energy, as long as you do it over a short period of time (Heisen-bergs Uncertainty Principles).
Voila – The Universe.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
So..if ''he'' always was and always will be, what did ''he'' do before ''he'' created us? Just sat on his ass being bored?
Some people say they love God. I love science, though I never was particularly good at mathematics. I wonder what people would say to "God" if they thought there would be no negative repercussions? Like, hey, get your act together?
A lot of you guys are really heavy into science. I wish I had paid more attention in my physics classes. I went to a parochial grade school: big on prayer and religion, delinquent on science.
Originally posted by clickclick
Priests have free will and are not above bad choices.
I don't think I would call the rape of a child a "bad choice." It goes way beyond that in seriousness. It makes it sound as if the rapist made a wrong turn on a highway or something. Would you want to rephrase that? The entire sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is beyond incredible. These bishops care more about retaining their positions of power than doing anything to address the problem. I honestly don't think they care anything about the victims at all.
The only people who can do anything about sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church are its members -- the "civilians" who finance the whole thing with their contributions. And their solution: throw more money at the church leaders...
I don't think I would call the rape of a child a "bad choice." It goes way beyond that in seriousness. It makes it sound as if the rapist made a wrong turn on a highway or something. Would you want to rephrase that? The entire sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is beyond incredible. These bishops care more about retaining their positions of power than doing anything to address the problem. I honestly don't think they care anything about the victims at all.The only people who can do anything about sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church are its members -- the "civilians" who finance the whole thing with their contributions. And their solution: throw more money at the church leaders...
You may not have described their decision as a "bad choice" but that's exactly what it was. If you dont feel like its effective enough in potraying the seriousness of their acts, then you can select a different description when you speak about it. I dont find it appropriate that you would tell me how to though.
Killing somebody is a bad choice. Raping somebody is a bad choice. Such statements are accurate, accurate to what I believe anyway. That those actions are wrong and therefore bad choices.
Sorry, but "bad choice" doesn't do it for me. How about "abominable act"? Some of these priests engaged in a series of "bad choices" or abominable acts"? Which better conveys the seriousness of the offense?
Be it one or the other, it would not make your complaint correct(that it was beyond a bad choice). My question to you is, which is incorrect?
Finti> “well if you dont think divinity exist you are against the idea of a god”
No. Being AGAINST a thing, mean you oppose it. I don’t oppose God, because I do not think any divinity exists.
Do you believe in aliens from outer space? No? Are you AGAINST aliens from outer space?
Duronkiller> ” we've talked about matter and anti-matter in school... as i didnt believe in up/down-quark i denied the subject matter, and the teacher accepted it cause its only a theory.”
ONLY a theory. You, dude, need to
1) go read up on the scientific method
2) what is meant by a scientific theory as opposed to our everyday use of the word ”theory”
3) You’re entitled tro not ”believe” in up-/down quarks. And to not ”believe” then, in turn, in protons and neutrons (which consists of up/down quarks), then to NOT believe in atoms, which consists of protons and neutrons in the center, and then in turn to NOT believe in matter. I don’t give a damn.
4) Explain to me why you’re so much wiser than nuclear scientists since the early 1970’s
5) And then read this http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae134.cfm
http://home.cwru.edu/~sjr16/advanced/extras_particlephys.html
So not only are YOU stupid. So is your teacher for accepting your ignorance!
Clickcklick> ” Well beyond the fact that to believe quantum physics created the universe you would still require the use faith, there are still yet unresolved problems in such a theory.”
BELIEVE quantum physics??? It’s not about believing here, you moron! Read the links I gave Duronkiller, and tell me that diodes, transistors, lasers and MRI-images are THEORY!
1) It’s not the job of scintists to disprove God. You, the religious person, has to supply me with proof.
2) ”problem being that in true nothingness, space and photons would never exist.” Okay, YOU go study some physics, learn about vacuum, quantum-vacuum, and then come back again, okay?
3) Well, you’re incapable og grasping the answer. Study some science, will you? I gave you your answer. Deal with it!
BELIEVE quantum physics??? It’s not about believing here, you moron! Read the links I gave Duronkiller, and tell me that diodes, transistors, lasers and MRI-images are THEORY!1) It’s not the job of scintists to disprove God. You, the religious person, has to supply me with proof.
2) ”problem being that in true nothingness, space and photons would never exist.” Okay, YOU go study some physics, learn about vacuum, quantum-vacuum, and then come back again, okay?
3) Well, you’re incapable og grasping the answer. Study some science, will you? I gave you your answer. Deal with it!
Quatam physics is a study, I dont recall saying that I dont believe it exists. I recall saying that believing that Quantam physics simply created the universe is a matter of faith, its not something that has been proven. I recall saying that the that to believe the prevelant theory for the existence of the universe (the big bang theory) is an obvious matter of faith as it lacks proof.
A religious person doesnt need to prove the existence of god, that is incredibly faulty logic. Religion is based on faith which goes without saying that it can not be proved (not yet anyway). It is a belief, with a basis for that belief.
I dont need to further study physics to understand what it is you are saying. Save your chilidish insults for people down there on your level of maturity, they do nothing but make you look foolish in a conversation amongst adults.
You gave me an answer that didnt sufficiently explain the problem. Dont worry, I realize that I really should not go to you for an answer to my question. You can only tell me what youve been taught, not expand on that or make your own deductions.
The big bang theory is still dependent on something having always existed, which in itself can not truly be explained let alone proved.
Now let me get into the notion of an ever existing universe. Here is what Hawkins had to say
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe… if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. "
Not only is this another theory that requires faith and will never be proved (and doesnt disprove god, which neither do any of the other theories) but the explanation for the theory is that it would simply be. We are talking about one of the greatest physicist minds today whos ultimate explanation for this phenomenon is that "it would simply be".
Are you saying that Religion has an onus of proof but the counter to that (science) does not?
You can believe whatever you want to believe but whether it be religion or in scientific theories, it will require you to have a lot of faith.
In fact I find it down right comical that you insist that the onus of proof is on me. Why? Am I trying to covert you? You think I honestly care which way you swing ?
I just came to this section to discuss my views, not to change your mind.
With true nothingness, the big bang could never have occured. You are clearly bordering on delusional if you believe the big bang theory is a fact.
Originally posted by eleveninches
Well it was certainly not a good choice.
Are you saying that it was a good choice, because that is the only alternative
Nope. It wasn't a choice at all. "Choice" was the term used by clickclick. I prefer "abominable act."
Clickclick is obviously a product of years of religious propaganda. Please email us, clickclick, when you reach the afterlife. You know, "Having fun, wish you were here," or something like that.
Clickclick> Quantum-physics is a branch of science, that has NOTHING to do with belief. And the Big Bang is a lot more than faith.
Did you actually STUDY the subject? What are your degrees in cosmology, quantum-physics and the general theory of relativity?
You have none I assume, since if you had you wouldn’t make such a blatantly stupid remark as “is an obvious matter of faith as it lacks proof.”
“A religious person doesnt need to prove the existence of god, that is incredibly faulty logic.”
There is absolutely nothing faulty in requiring someone to offer proof of their claim. On the contrary. Logic fails entirely, if someone can claim the existence of something solely on the basis of a personally (or culturally) accepted delusion.
”I dont need to further study physics to understand what it is you are saying.”
OH, really?
”Save your chilidish insults for people down there on your level of maturity, they do nothing but make you look foolish in a conversation amongst adults.”
😆
So that would be you, eh? The adult? Who knows zip about science, yet claims the scientif theory of the Big Bang requires faith.
”You gave me an answer that didnt sufficiently explain the problem.”
Then go study some science. Or sufficiently explain what exactly it is that you do not understand.
”The big bang theory is still dependent on something having always existed,”
Such as? ”Always” is a temporal concept. Time itself (along with space) was created at the moment of Big Bang. When you understand THIS, or is capable of accepting what this entails, lemme know.
”Now let me get into the notion of an ever existing universe. Here is what Hawkins had to say.”
😆
Ehrm, sorry, you don’t really understand what professor Stephen Hawking is discussing. Hawking is discussing an ”if”-situation. He is in no way CLAIMING that this is the case. Notice the ”the idea that…” And Hawking is in no way supportive of a notion of an ever-existing Universe. He speaks of the mathematics of space-time, and what would happen if we were to model the Universe as a CLOSED surface WITHOUT boundary.
Don’t even try to put religions in the same category as science. That’s an insult to science.
What proof, pray tell, does religion have? Where is the proof that God created anything, that the Bible is God’s word, and that Jesus ever existed.
If you’re having trouble with Big Bang. What, pray tell, is the Cosmic Microwave Background?
I don't believe in stuff that can't be proven. You - who do - is the one suffering from delusions.