Your God is not real.

[Doug1029]

In short, the labelling of the Start with some names provides little help, until Physics can establish the very mechanism of how something is produced from nothing - but in order to have this mechanism in Physics, it has first to be established Mathematically - so any enthusiastic Astrophysicist here is of no value at all, no matter how many Nobel prizes he won. And certainly, establishment of Hadrone Collider with no solid Mathematical base behind means building yet another very possible white elephant.

All I'm saying is that the Big Bang is an asymptote and thus, inaccessible. Remember the North Pole analogy? Just as there is nothing north of the North Pole, there was no "before the Big Bang." Matter and Energy have always existed and thus, there is no violation of the Law of Conservation.

As for space being a vaccuum - during Inflation, so current thinking goes, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. That is why we see a dark night sky: light from the Big Bang has yet to catch up with us.

The expansion of the universe is carrying matter along with it. That's why there is no friction: the molecules that would provide the friction are moving in the same direction; those in front are moving even faster than we are, so we never collide with them; thus, no friction.

If you want to object to the current model of the universe, there is lots of ground: the current model has 17 variables, but has values for only 14 of them. That leaves a lot of wiggle room. A mathematician would call the current model insoluble with present data; the best we can produce, at the moment, is an approximation of reality.

So while there is room to object to the Big Bang, the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and the principle of friction, cannot do the job.

Doug

[MARAB0D]

All I'm saying is that the Big Bang is an asymptote and thus, inaccessible. Remember the North Pole analogy? Just as there is nothing north of the North Pole, there was no "before the Big Bang." Matter and Energy have always existed and thus, there is no violation of the Law of Conservation.

As for space being a vaccuum - during Inflation, so current thinking goes, the universe expanded faster than the speed of light. That is why we see a dark night sky: light from the Big Bang has yet to catch up with us.

The expansion of the universe is carrying matter along with it. That's why there is no friction: the molecules that would provide the friction are moving in the same direction; those in front are moving even faster than we are, so we never collide with them; thus, no friction.

If you want to object to the current model of the universe, there is lots of ground: the current model has 17 variables, but has values for only 14 of them. That leaves a lot of wiggle room. A mathematician would call the current model insoluble with present data; the best we can produce, at the moment, is an approximation of reality.

So while there is room to object to the Big Bang, the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy and the principle of friction, cannot do the job.

Doug

Well, you have just saved Conservation Laws and friction on expense of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics! One way or another you are right and the sky is black - but maybe it is black because there was no Big Bang? Or there was no light from it? I do not argue here, because we both see no reason for arguing - we simply do not know. The only one who knows is Phreak.

[MysticOnion]

If God appeared to you - that is any one of you, and told you he doesn't exist literally said "I don't exist" Would you believe him?

Before you answer - its not Satan or anyone pretending to be God - lets just for the sake of argument, say its been proven that this is God - by science, by whatever means agreeable with you.

I ask again... if GOD appeared to you and told you he doesn't exist - would you believe him? I want to imagine him in all his glory, he's everything you ever thought he would be.. and so so much more.. he goes up to you and speaks your name.. he touches you and pulls you to him and says something like "My son.. you are deluded .. I am no more a real being than Legolas the Elf from Lord of the Rings.. I don't exist and I am imaginary..."

I mean.. how would you reply?

I'd reply... "I know you're Imaginary, God."

[greggK]

I'd reply... "I know you're Imaginary, God."

One side of God is image and one side is likeness. The two together as one is a soul.

[Lt_Ripley]

One side of God is image and one side is likeness. The two together as one is a soul.

that's a whopper of an opinion.

[Doug1029]

Well, you have just saved Conservation Laws and friction on expense of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics! One way or another you are right and the sky is black - but maybe it is black because there was no Big Bang? Or there was no light from it? I do not argue here, because we both see no reason for arguing - we simply do not know. The only one who knows is Phreak.

If you can exlain how it is that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics conflict with Conservation of Matter and Energy and friction, then I would like to hear it. But you are right that there's an awful lot out there that we just don't know and the correct model of the universe is one of those.

I know how much work goes into this type of research, so I am reluctant to dismiss findings out of hand unless I have some expertise in the field. I don't have much in physics, so I will have to defer to those who know better than I.

Maybe we should ask Phreak to explain why Conservation conflicts with Quantum Mechanics. He seems to know everything else.

Doug

[MARAB0D]

If you can exlain how it is that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics conflict with Conservation of Matter and Energy and friction, then I would like to hear it. But you are right that there's an awful lot out there that we just don't know and the correct model of the universe is one of those.

I know how much work goes into this type of research, so I am reluctant to dismiss findings out of hand unless I have some expertise in the field. I don't have much in physics, so I will have to defer to those who know better than I.

Maybe we should ask Phreak to explain why Conservation conflicts with Quantum Mechanics. He seems to know everything else.

Doug

According to Relativity a mass cannot accelerate to reach the speed over the speed of light, as this mass must then grow to Infinity! Relativity is by proximity close to Quantum Mechanics, which also proves almost the same, dealing with De Broigle's wavelength for the physical particles and objects. De-facto QM deals with the objects of extremely small (there is a definition to this) particles moving at low speeds (those smaller than speed of Light), and Relativity deals with heavy objects (same definition as in QM) moving at high speeds (compared to speed of light). They both present a half of modern Theoretical Physics, and the least studied half (the other half would be Optics and Newtonian Mechanics, all 4 parts are interconnected). This is why expansion at high speeds fall off both of them - if we allow such expansion we need first to scrap QM and Relativist Physics. While Relativity is only a well-supported Theory, QM is a science in full sense, as it has Laws of Nature generated by it, all practically verifiable. For example Principle of Uncertainty by Heisenberg or Schroedinger's equation, which allows to predict the orbital shapes mathematically, not only empirically. Einstein was involved in both, as his Nobel Prize was for the Laws of Photoeffect, which are related to QM (ability of the electron to leave the material when hit by the electromagnetic quantum like photon).

Neither part of existing Physics contradicts to Conservation Laws, as Thermodynamics remains the same for all of them - except for Big Bang, which openly breaches these laws. Friction - it is a part of Newtonian Mechanics, taking into account the interaction of the objects with the media, they move through. You presume that micro-objects expand as fast as the macro-objects, but we do not have any data on this, as far as I know. The expansion is measured by measuring Doppler's shift in the light frequencies of the remote stars, so one needs a source of light to establish it, while the gas clouds are not such sources. In general we do not know any Physical Law which governs this expansion - and this is precisely what makes Big Bang not a theory but the current "working hypothesis" (definition-wise, not by name). They "promoted" it to Theories because there is nothing else to refer to, not because they know something special about it. Big Bang is de-facto an admittance of the fact that Physics refuses to look deeper than early periods of the Universe, WITHOUT touching the reasons and mechanisms of Creation of it. Hawking is not a "real" genius, but simply a very intelligent and educated guy, who speculates about these mechanisms, being subsidised and supported by all governments - because all of them want Physics to over-ride the Creationism. Political correctness, no more.

[Agent X]

Can it be observed that mass increases as it gains speed?

[MARAB0D]

Can it be observed that mass increases as it gains speed?

Not at the moment, as far as I know - but it is Mathematically substantiated. This is why Relativity is still called "theory". This is why they do build those cyclotrons and colliders, to check this part.

Edited July 25, 2009 by marabod

[MARAB0D]

Mass as such according to Newton is not an "amount of Matter" like some think, but "measure of Inertia". It is only a coincidence that the mass in our measurings is almost equal to the weight (as everything was standardised for Earth gravity field). SI system removes this standard and measures mass in kilograms and weight in Newtons. Physics distinguishes TWO mass meanings for each object - the "static mass" (which we measure with the scales) and "dynamic mass" if this object is moving. This dynamic mass is responsible, say, for Solar wind. Photon's static mass differs from its dynamic's mass.

[MARAB0D]

Sorry, ERG system (the old one) was also distinguishing - mass was in grams and weight in dyns or gram-Forces (as far as I remember). But for Imperial System weight and mass were one the same pound.

Edited July 25, 2009 by marabod

[MarKy090]

Now I will say it as fact that your god is not real. I am not saying God is not real but your definition or rather concept of God is not real and thats why.

If you say that god is transcended being outside of time and space etc... And that he created universe because universe has to obey certian rules and needs some sort of creator that it is equal to say

That your God needs a Creator and some sort of rules if you say he doesn't then what are you saying is special pleeding and you make a checklist of rules that universe must obey and then present arguments that doesn't have to obey the checklist and that is cheating.

My logic tells me that there is no god like I said even without minds logic would still exist.

The core principle of logic can be expressed A or not A or IS or ISN't they can't be both and if you say god transcends rules of logic that means you are saying God does or doesn't exist at the same time then you have 3 possibile anwsers God does exist, God does not exist and God does and doesnt exist and 2 of that 3 possibilety's god does not exist and when you state that something is beyond over understanding, logic and reason you are no longer on the grounds to make any claims.

So god must obey the rules of logic if I ask you can god create square circle?

No he can't he must obey some rules also.

And for all those attributes being outside time that does not mean he doesn't need a beginning that means that he never existed and could not make any actions.

And if you say he is omnipresent then that means he is everywhere in space so it should not be difficult to demostrete himself?

Many of you say God can't be proven or disproven and you think you are somehow right and thats a fact?

Your God does not exist because there is no proof for it and by using simple logic.

You have 2 things He exist or not exist if I say there is no proof that he does exist and my understanding and logic tells me he doesn't then he doesn't because they are only 2 possible anwsers.

Tell me why do you think God exist but Flying Spaghetti monster does not?

Both of them "can't" be proven or disproven.

If you say because you believe you are using false term you should say faith because in order to believe in claim you have to be presented with some sort of proof or working theory (theory is not the same as hypothesis) I believe that this criminal is innocent based on presented evidence when you know for certian you would say I know he is innocent but with faith you would say

LALALALA HE is guilty and nothing will change my mind.

So for people who don't use critical thinking for all things and situation like religious people please don't become a Judge or Jury.

hi. just wanna say good ****ing luck with that.

[greggK]

that's a whopper of an opinion.

Well, the reason I think that is we were created in the image and likeness of God. The bible in Genesis does state, 'Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness . . .'

So they are separate things.

One is 'in' and one is 'after.'

I'm sorry, this God isn't real so . . .

Edited July 25, 2009 by greggK

[MARAB0D]

Well, the reason I think that is we were created in the image and likeness of God. The bible in Genesis does state, 'Let us make man in our own image, after our likeness . . .'

So they are separate things.

One is 'in' and one is 'after.'

Overstretch. It does not say "in our Image AND after our likeness" so the "likeness" simply clarifies what Image is - given that God has neither image nor likeness in the Matter.

[greggK]

Overstretch. It does not say "in our Image AND after our likeness" so the "likeness" simply clarifies what Image is - given that God has neither image nor likeness in the Matter.

It does not have to add AND in there, 'image' and 'likeness' are different words. They may describe water as steam.

In that case, what would cause the water to turn to steam? Oh, heat you say. Hmmmm. . .

Edited July 25, 2009 by greggK

[MARAB0D]

It does not have to add AND in there, 'image' and 'likeness' are different words. They may describe water as steam.

In that case, what would cause the water to turn to steam? Oh, heat you say. Hmmmm. . .

Because God does not have Image he could use "likeness" as a supportive explanation, otherwise the Man would not have any Image at all Moreover, God does not have a voicebox, so hardly he could pronounce these words at all, and they remain on the responsibility of the author who used them to represent God's intentions. However this author was not living before the Creation took place, so these words were a post-creational reconstruction, and hardly can be taken literally - we do not have God's voice recorded on tape saying these words.

[ZEB]

Its all spiritual,,, all of it,,its all the spirit inside our own minds what makes us tick what makes us reason this is why we are different then the rest of the species,,,not matter what tribe freinds, I am of NATIVE American and french decent,,do you think god hated the Native americans becuase

they were not Chrisitans,,,and the belief systems of all relgions differ,,,one IS NOT better then the other only different,,God is a Spritual decsion

Native Americans were all about Mother earth,,,the only reason we are alive is because of this Planets entity,,we can not live anywhere else

that we know of yet,,,there is only One Earth,,,our whole exsistence depends on how we treat our earth,,we all need to wake up and smell

our planet,,,this is the spiritual song of life,,we all are born and die and live in the garden of life,,,our spirit is real,,the decisions we make

are our own,,,wrong or right..its up to us as individuals to believe in ourselves to better oursleves morally,,God or no god,,,WE ARE HERE

and we must believe in ourselves as a species,,not a race,,and reach out to each other for in reality we are all one,,zeb