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 17:49
VIEWED: 9477
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:23 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:26 PM

*Happily eating noodles*

*Smote by marinara sauce*

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

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:34 PM

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

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:38 PM

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

...and gas.

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:42 PM

Go easy on the holy garlic.

The laughing Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 6:55 PM

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

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:26 PM

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 7:27 PM

The laughing Chrisisall

KAREL

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:24 PM

Got touched by His Noodly Appendage?

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:48 AM

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..

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:57 AM

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!

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 1:25 AM

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..?

OUT2THEBLACK

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 1:51 AM

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..."

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:06 AM

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!

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:08 AM

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

PIRATENEWS

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:19 AM

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:20 AM

Gaze into the infinite, and know the unknowable.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:31 AM

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

ANTIMASON

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:49 AM

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 "

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 3:04 AM

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

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:18 AM

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"

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:58 AM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:13 AM

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.

JONGSSTRAW

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:00 PM

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.

HERO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:03 PM

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.

HERO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:11 PM

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.

HERO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:12 PM

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.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 12:23 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 2:16 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:06 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:31 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:39 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:05 PM

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.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:20 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:26 PM

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

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:32 PM

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.

HERO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:33 PM

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.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:44 PM

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

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:54 PM

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.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 5:57 PM

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.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:02 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:06 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:12 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:17 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:20 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:22 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:38 PM

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.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:51 PM

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?!?!?!"

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 6:51 PM

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.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:00 PM

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'.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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.

I'm not sure what that has to do with singularities. It merely says that Yang-Mills would seem to suggest that the universe should have collapsed into a singularity, which since that hasn't happened indicates there's something missing from Yang-Mills, not that Singularities don't exist.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:10 PM

It's small, but it's not zero. What you have observed, however, is part of a noted paradox in Hawkings radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation#Trans-Planckian_problem

Quote:
The trans-Planckian problem is the observation that Hawking's original calculation requires talking about quantum particles in which the wavelength becomes shorter than the Planck length near the black hole horizon. It is due to the peculiar behavior near a gravitational horizon where time stops as measured from far away. A particle emitted from a black hole with a finite frequency, if traced back to the horizon, must have had an infinite frequency there and a trans-Planckian wavelength.

Here's a wikipedia entry on Stephen Hawking's no singularity Big Bang model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Speculative_physics_beyond_Big_B
ang_theory

Quote:
The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary condition, in which the whole of space-time is finite; the Big Bang does represent the limit of time, but without the need for a singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle-Hawking_state

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 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'.

Amazingly enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. He refuted his own work that he did in the 1960s on the Big Bang model, because he thought a no singularity big bang model better explained his observations.

Now THERE'S an example of a non-biased scientist! I love that he was willing and able to say he was wrong in the quest for greater understanding.

And prior to reading his work on the subject, I would have said anyone who argued against a singularity based big bang was a total nutjob. But he makes very convincing, easy to follow arguments all based in quantum mechanics, so, like I said, I like the idea. I think it has potential. He even proposed ways in which it could be proved or disproved, that I believe the LHC is going to be looking into... If they ever get it online, that is. ._.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:29 PM

The Singularities wavelength being shorter than the planck length means it's effect on the 'probability cloud' is meaningless to the singularity. It means it's as good as Zero.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Amazingly enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. He refuted his own work that he did in the 1960s on the Big Bang model, because he thought a no singularity big bang model better explained his observations.

Now THERE'S an example of a non-biased scientist! I love that he was willing and able to say he was wrong in the quest for greater understanding.

And prior to reading his work on the subject, I would have said anyone who argued against a singularity based big bang was a total nutjob. But he makes very convincing, easy to follow arguments all based in quantum mechanics, so, like I said, I like the idea. I think it has potential. He even proposed ways in which it could be proved or disproved, that I believe the LHC is going to be looking into... If they ever get it online, that is. ._.

And I'm saying I find it unlikely until I read it for myself

.

As for the big bang, the only updated thinking I've seen from Hawking was that the singularity appeared spontaneously and then began to expand like a bubble.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
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'.

And I think that the idea of a two dimensional disk violates the concept of a singularity all by itself, without quantum effects.

Even if it doesn't... Hey, look! Quantum effects! You can smear a disk just like you can smear a point.

The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether that smearing does in fact happen, even though you appear to acknowledge wavelengths of particles in a singularity, and Hawking radiation.

Looks like I'm going to be doing a refresher in quantum gravity right now, since your argument seems to be that the gravity well at a black hole singularity locks particles into place and renders their probability cloud non-existent.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I think that the idea of a two dimensional disk violates the concept of a singularity all by itself, without quantum effects.

Well it doesn't, the singularity in a rotating black hole is still called a singularity.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only thing we seem to disagree on is whether that smearing does in fact happen, even though you appear to acknowledge wavelengths of particles in a singularity, and Hawking radiation.

We disagree on whether it's relevant. Everything has a wavelength, but with anything more massive than an electron it becomes increasingly irrelevant. And Black holes are much more massive than an electron. Even so, QM making a singularities position 'fuzzy' doesn't actually mean it's not a singularity any more than it stops an electron being an electron.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Looks like I'm going to be doing a refresher in quantum gravity right now, since your argument seems to be that the gravity well at a black hole singularity locks particles into place and renders their probability cloud non-existent.

Is there a formalised theory of Quantum Gravity? There's a lot of hopefull's, but it's still very much the holy grail.

Anyway, no, my argument is that the singularity has enough mass to make it's wavelength irrelevant. I'm also saying that the probability cloud is a way of us getting to grips with the fact that a particle could be anywhere within that cloud. But the particle isn't actually a cloud, it is a specific point, it's just we can't be sure where it is without measuring it, and when you do that you change it's state, and you also can't know where it's going to be.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 7:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There's a lot of hopeful's, but it's still very much the holy grail.

Excuseshe me?

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:00 PM

Of physics, bitch. Stick Sean Connery in a Wheel chair and you're on to something.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:00 PM

Here's some stuff I found on the wikipedia page for Schrodinger's equation. Has to do with particles in very small or one dimensional (point) spaces.

Quote:
For potentials V(x) that are bounded below and are not infinite in such a way that will divide space into regions which are inaccessible by quantum tunneling, there is a ground state which minimizes the integral above. The lowest energy wavefunction is real and nondegenerate and has the same sign everywhere.

To prove this, let the ground state wavefunction be ψ. The real and imaginary parts are separately ground states, so it is no loss of generality to assume the ψ is real. Suppose now, for contradiction, that ψ changes sign. Define η(x) to be the absolute value of ψ.

η = | ψ |

The potential and kinetic energy integral for η is equal to psi, except that η has a kink wherever ψ changes sign. The integrated-by-parts expression for the kinetic energy is the sum of the squared magnitude of the gradient, and it is always possible to round out the kink in such a way that the gradient gets smaller at every point, so that the kinetic energy is reduced.

This also proves that the ground state is nondegenerate. If there were two ground states ψ1(x) and ψ2(x) not proportional to each other and both everywhere nonnegative then a linear combination of the two is still a ground state, but it can be made to have a sign change.

For one-dimensional potentials, every eigenstate is nondegenerate, because the number of sign changes is equal to the level number.

Quote:
Relativity is incompatible with a single particle picture. A relativistic particle cannot be localized to a small region without the particle number becoming indefinite. When a particle is localized in a box of length L, the momentum is uncertain by an amount roughly proportional to h/L by the uncertainty principle. This leads to an energy uncertainty of hc/L, when |p| is large enough so that the mass of the particle can be neglected. This uncertainty in energy is equal to the mass-energy of the particle when

L = {\hbar \over mc} \,

and this is called the Compton wavelength. Below this length, it is impossible to localize a particle and be sure that it stays a single particle, since the energy uncertainty is large enough to produce more particles from the vacuum by the same mechanism that localizes the original particle.

I'm not entirely sure what this MEANS. But that last paragraph digests tasty in regards to how those virtual particles could be emitted from black holes.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:02 PM

I'm kind of amazed Chris hasn't made any quip yet about hairy rotating black holes.

Come on, man, get your A-game on.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

I'm kind of amazed Chris hasn't made any quip yet about

That's not the singularity I had in mind.

The laughing Chrisisall

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:07 PM

Yeah... I guess the "hairy" part of that equation is kind of a turn off.

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Yeah... I guess the "hairy" part of that equation is kind of a turn off.

I've heard some people go for that.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:13 PM

This thread has gone from the stratosphere to the landfill quite abruptly.

The laughing Chrisisall

CITIZEN

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
This thread has gone from the stratosphere to the landfill quite abruptly.

Maybe there's a black hole at work in this thread.

BYTEMITE

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:27 PM

Totally my bad. I just couldn't resist the tasteless joke.

Well... My brain will explode if I keep reading this stuff for much longer. I think I should actually wait until I can get home and have my Universe in a Nutshell book, before I continue looking for an explanation on how there could be quantum variance of particles that then smudges singularities. I think how this happens may be explained in the book, and in ways that don't make me feel cross-eyed like some of wikipedia's quantum mechanics articles.

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:47 PM

Quote:

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."

Yeah, but he really likes when the girlies are goggling his meatballs. :)

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.

RIPWASH

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:52 PM

Ya know . . . with Byte and Cit ramblin' on and on, I kinda feel like Jayne. "If I'd wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

Too high falutin' for me, guys.

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

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

KWICKO

Wednesday, July 1, 2009 9:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Ya know . . . with Byte and Cit ramblin' on and on, I kinda feel like Jayne. "If I'd wanted schoolin' I woulda gone to school!"

Too high falutin' for me, guys.

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

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

Oh, that's okay, Rip - we can have our own decidedly more low-brow discussion going on at the same time. That's the beauty of RWED - discussions can take off on tangents all their own, and can lead damn near anywhere!

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.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:07 AM

Sorry guys... Just going to post what I can from a universe from a nutshell, see what Citizen makes of the quotes, then we can go back to worshiping the greatest food conceived by man.

Quote:
What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. ~Der Speigel

Quote:
When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market. However, I can re-assure anyone who is nervous about their investments that it is a bit early to sell: even if the universe does come to an end, it won't be for at least twenty billion years. By that time, maybe the GATT trade agreement will have come into effect. ~The Beginning of Time

Quote:
We are used to the idea that events are caused by earlier events. There is a chain of causality stretching back into the past. But suppose this chain has a beginning. Suppose there was was a first event. What caused it? This was not a question that many scientists wanted to address. They tried to avoid it, either by claiming, like the Russians, that the universe didn't have a beginning or by maintaining that the origin of the universe did not lie within the realm of science but belonged to metaphysics or religion. In my opinion, this is not a position any true scientist should take. If the laws of science are suspended at the beginning of the universe, might not they fail at other times also? A law is not a law if it only holds sometimes. We must try to understand the beginning of the universe on the basis of science. It may be a task beyond our powers, but we should at least make the attempt. ~Nutshell, page 79

Quote:
As Chapters 1 and 2 point out, the reason general relativity broke down near the big bang is that it did not incorporate the uncertainty principle, the random element of quantum theory that Einstein objected to on the grounds that God does not play dice. However, all the evidence is that God is quite a gambler. ~Nutshell, page 79

Quote:
The Unified theory will not in itself tell us how the universe began or what it's initial state was. For that, we need what are called boundary conditions, rules that tell us what happens... a colleague named Jim Hartle and I realized there was a third possibility. Maybe the universe has no boundary in space and time. At first glance, this seems to be in direct contradiction with the theorems that Penrose and I proved, which showed that the universe must have a beginning, a boundary in time. However, as explained in Chapter 2, there is another kind of time, imaginary time, that is at right angles to the ordinary real time that we feel going by. ~Nutshell, page 80-82

Imaginary time actually makes sense when explained in chapter two, but I don't really want to get into that here.

Slight contradiction of my argument to follow, but he's explaining it as best as we're able, and that involves singularities. You'll notice I haven't exactly been able to describe the result of star collapse as anything else but a singularity, even though... Well, you'll see in the quote after this.

Quote:
If they [stars ~Byte] are more than about twice the mass of the Sun, the pressure will never be sufficient to stop the contraction. They will collapse to zero size and infinite density to form what is called a singularity. ~Nutshell, page 114

Quote:
The difficulty with determinism arose when I discovered that black holes aren't completely black. As we saw in Chapter 2, quantum theory means that fields can't be exactly zero even in what is called a vaccuum. If they were zero, they would have both an exact value or position at zero and an exact rate of change or velocity that was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle, which says that the position and the velocity can't both be well defined. All fields must instead have a certain amount of what are called vacuum fluctuations... In this case it is helpful to think of vacuum fluctuations as pair

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

CUDA77

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sorry guys... Just going to post what I can from a universe from a nutshell, see what Citizen makes of the quotes, then we can go back to worshiping the greatest food conceived by man.

Oh, we're gonna start talking about bacon now? I'm in!

ANTIMASON

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
[

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

arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal

Quote:
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?

reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material

Quote:
Ditto amphibians and fish.

aphibians and fish are nothing alike. fish dont have hips, and they dont have ear drums, and they dont limbs. you cant explain how any of these distinctions arose, because they were designed uniquely

the differences between invertabrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are enormous. did each category have a common ancestor? we've not been able to determine how the first multi-celled organism began, let alone each one of these species.

let alone human beings.. the brain, which is still not fully understood. that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:10 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish

A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?

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

Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.

What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?

Quote:
did each category have a common ancestor?

Yes.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:38 AM

My contribution to the original thread is one of my fav quotations:

The doctrine of the material efficacy of prayer reduces the Creator to a cosmic bellhop of a not very bright or reliable kind.
-Herbert J. Muller, educator, historian, and author (1905-1980)

I am actually very religious, and I pray everyday. But I don't much see the point of a Santa-Clause-God. I believe in a Coach-God. He (or she or it) paces on the sidelines, shouts suggestions and pep talks at me and my teammates, but we are the ones who have to play the game, reach our own goals, and suffer the injuries. But Coach-God's help is still invaluable, given his accumulated experiences and his perspective of a bigger picture.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:20 PM

Bitemite:

Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H

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

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 12:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

arent you clever.. thats right, youre an atheist liberal

And one who apparently benefited more from the public education system than some. Oh, that's right - you're a conservative evangelical. Shouldn't expect much in the way of "fancy book-learnin'" from your kind, should I?

Quote:

reptiles are cold blooded, and mammals are warm blooded. show me a reptile that gives a live birth.. and has mammary glands to nurse their young? did the warm blooded bird species come from reptiles as well? thats quite a "genetic mutation".. given that mutations have never been proven to result in new genetic material

Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.

Quote:
that you would believe it arose through its own mechanisms, by by chance and time, is absurd to the highest degree. its incomprehensible that some could be so arrogant to assume such things

As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.

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.

BLUESUNCOMPANYMAN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Most of it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of the existence of singularities. Imaginary Time is something I'll pick up on, it's the theory that there is an extra dimension of time, so that time is two dimensional. It's not strictly a string theory, but it fits into the overall extra dimensionality of string theory, especially since no string theory requires any extra dimension to be a spatial rather than temporal one.

It takes away the question of time beginning or ending at a singularity, because time becomes a closed surface rather than a straight line. To illustrate take a ball, draw a line from one point on the ball to another. If you looked at just the line, you'd have a beginning and an end, yes? But each point that forms the beginning and end of your line is just another point on the ball. The line would be normal time, the balls surface is two dimensional time, normal time + imaginary time, and although the points have different connotations in two dimensional time, it doesn't invalidate their existence.

C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
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.

The platypus is PROOF. If ever there was a creature that was the "last" to be designed its this one.

I've eaten enough left overs in my time to recognize somebody trying not to let something go to waste. This, the flying squirrel, and the red-assed monkeys...by then he had to be telling himself "I need a day off."

H

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

The platypus is "proof" of the existence of a creator or designer?

That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]

I know you can't see it,"Hero", but this is what you're doing. I hope you do a better job of lawyering in real life than you do here, because in here, you really, really suck at presenting evidence.

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.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 3:18 PM

I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I know. I included some of those because they are just some good quotes. I'm trying to get you to read the book, you know. :)

There's places where he talks more exactly about quantum effects and how because of it, any previous collapse was more like a smudged singularity, and the variance is why the microwave background isn't homogenous every where we look, and why there's expansion and collapse in the first place.

It's in a chapter where he shows some computer models of various universe possibilities, and their irregularities, but in my look through I didn't get to that chapter. I had to transcribe all those quotes, and I ran out of time last night. I suspect everyone would prefer it if I didn't continue, seeing as how our conversation has gotten a few complaints.

The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

Oh no - PLEASE don't stop on my account! I'm finding it somewhat hard to follow, a bit, but it's fascinating nonetheless. And if we stopped every time things got hard, where would we be?

Oooh - there's probably got to be a better way to phrase that, considering the entendres and innuendo flying around here already!

But carry on. Some of us are fascinated.

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.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bluesuncompanyman:
C, Could it actually be that you and I have something in common?

Until now I had been firm in my belief that we'd never agree on...anything.

I actually think Quantum Mechanics as it stands will be replaced by Multi-Dimension String theory as soon as we have mathematics good enough to do so, so perhaps we do disagree if that makes you feel better?

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 4:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The quotes I do give, particularly the second quote and the last three (before the just for fun bit) talk about the revival of the expand-collapse theory, about a no boundary no beginning of time no singularity universe that seems to contradict his earlier work, and fluctuations within a blackhole singularity.

That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities, more than makes them take on a different shape from a different standpoint.

Like a 3D ball interacting with a 2D universe ala flatworld. It looks one way to the flatworlders, a circle that changes shape size and reappears and disappears at will, but look at it in 3D and you realise it's just moving about in the extra Z direction that flatworlders have no knowledge of, and can't experience. But it still exists, it's just less weird in 3D than it is in 2D.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:42 PM

It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.

You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 5:52 PM

Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.

Quote:
In order to predict how the universe should have started off, one needs laws that hold at the beginning of time. If classical theory of general relativity was correct, the singularity theorems that Roger Penrose and I proved show that the beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density and infinite curvature of space-time. All the known laws of science would break down at such a point. One might suppose that there were new laws that held at singularities, but it would be very difficult even to formulate such laws at such badly behaved points, and we would have no guide from observations as to what those laws might be. However, what the singularity theorems really indicate is that the gravitational field becomes so strong that quantum gravitational effects become important: classical theory is no longer a good description of the universe. So one has to use quantum theory of gravity to discuss the very early stages of the universe. As we shall see, it is possible in the quantum theory for the ordinary laws of science to hold everywhere, including at the beginning of time: it is not necessary to postulate new laws for singularities, because there need not be any singularities in the quantum theory. ~A Brief History of Time, page 172.

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's like saying the 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is PROOF that there's no god, because surely no loving and merciful god would allow such a thing to happen to his people.

There - I've proved it! Discussion over! [waves hands...]

All you've proved is a lack of imagination.

2004 Tsunami could mean no God, could mean God exists and does things for reasons we don't understand. Could mean God is real, but no loving or merciful. Could mean nothing and have no relevance to the issue since we all die at some point which could mean that its not when you die, why you die, or how you die...its what happens to you after you die that matters.

H

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

HERO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities

Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

H

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

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's because of imaginary time that Stephen Hawking first started looking into a no boundary no beginning universe, but his hypothesis on how this could've happened with our universe involves expansion/collapse, which involves quantum effects and smudged singularities.

Hmm, not exactly. Consider the ball example as the Earth, on the Earth we have lines of longitude and latitude, Longitude is regular time. A line of Longitude begins at the north pole, just as the universe's regular time begins at the singularity of the Big Bang. But if you look at the whole Earth, it doesn't begin at the north pole, the pole is just another point on the Earth's surface. That is, the Earth doesn't begin at the north pole, but lines of longitude do.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You're going to make me go look back at that other chapter, aren't you? *grumble*

I know, life is so hard. I have this bottle of Red wine, and it's so hot I had to put it in the fridge, now I'm going to have to drink it. *sigh*

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Oh, hey, it was actually in A Brief History of Time. No wonder I was having trouble finding the exact reference in Nutshell.
...

Well, yeah, the big assumption is that "Quantum Gravity" will remove Singularities from black holes. Now since Black holes form from the collapse of massive objects under gravity, I'm not sure how it plans to do that while remaining compatible with experimental evidence that has confirmed the Einstein Metric, but there you go. At the least I actually believe modern QM will give way to String theory and a more Einsteinian approach of Space-Time geometry to the matter-centric view of QM, and that Quantum Gravity will come from that, which means all bets would be off.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

Well, I'm erm, very flattered that you wrote a song about me and everything, but erm, I just don't think of you in that way, and I'm just not that sort of a boy, erm, but like, hang on in there, you'll meet someone.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 6:45 PM

Probably, although I think there's some problems with strings as a theory. For one, I haven't actually seen suggestions on how strings will be experimentally shown to exist. For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.

I can understand the use in strings trying to explain what makes up sub atomic particles and energy, but unless the existence of strings and predictions from string theory can be proven or disproven, I just don't know how useful it is.

However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:36 PM

Quote:

All you've proved is a lack of imagination.

You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?

KWICKO

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
That's because of imaginary time, and I don't see how that invalidates the existence of Singularities

Huh...all this talk of singularities and God...kinda makes me want to put it all together in a musical dance number:

One SINGULARITY sensation
Every little step HE takes.
One thrilling combination
Every move that HE makes.
One smile and suddenly nobody else will do;
You know you'll never be lonely with you know who.
One moment in HIS presence
And you can forget the rest.
For the GUY is second best
To none,
Son.
Ooooh! Sigh! Give HIM your attention.
Do...I...really have to mention?
HE's the ONE?

H

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

Your god sounds really, REALLY gay.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 7:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
For another, I haven't heard anyone try to predict any new kinds of exotic quantum particles with string theory, nor how many types there are.

The point is that exotic quantum particles won't be needed under string theory. Quantum Particles are needed in QM to explain forces and interactions, String theory explains these things in a non-matter centric way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
However, I do agree with the ten to eleven dimension hypotheses that string and M theory suggest, because those have mathematically been proven.

Yeah. Also, you know Maxwell's field equations simplify to a single simple equation under a multiple dimensional theory? One of the allures to String Theory's dimensionality is that it simplifies much of the mess of QM and related theories.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, July 2, 2009 8:43 PM

String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are does string theory mean all sub-atomic particles are really the same particle, made up off the same basic component (strings) but overlapped different ways?

Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.

CITIZEN

Thursday, July 2, 2009 9:31 PM

Quote:
String theory, it's been a while. Are the strings parts of the subatomic particles or are they all the same particle, overlapped and combined different ways?

In supersymmetric string (super string) theory Strings vibrate in different ways, which gives rise to different particles. Particles and forces are a consequence of strings vibrating at different frequencies, like different notes are the consequence of a Guitars strings vibrating at different frequencies.

Quote:
Ooh! I worked with Maxwell's equations for calculations a few times. ...Wouldn't really mind seeing them simplified somewhat, no. Just integration, really, but for some reason I had the most trouble with them and electrical currents out of all the fields of physics we covered.

I have a T-shirt, on the back it says:
and god said:
▽·B=O
▽xE=-aB/at
▽xH=i+aD/at
And there was light.

RUE

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:16 AM

Not done reading ... what I got so far:

Bytemite is arguing for the breakdown of the equations - and concepts - at the extreme. Even if the probability is very, very near zero, it exists, and so negates the definition.

Citizen is arguing that for all practical purposes the extreme is irrelevant. (This may be the equivalent to the argument as to why x-rays don't come roaring out of the hearth fire.) The wavelength is so small that, practically speaking, it applies to no known particle and is therefore moot.

My brain hurts. And I may not have got it right. Time to start the weekend.

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

Silence is consent.

ANTIMASON

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garter_snake#Reproduction

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobe-finned_fish

A mutation by definition IS new genetic material. Unless you mean a phenotype?

they look like variations within a common species type or phylum. that doesnt show how, as evolutionary biologists claim, amphibians evolved to reptiles, or birds evolved from reptiles, or mammals came from either of the sub catagories. since the Cambrian period, theres no fossil evidence of this overlap that you claim

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drosophila_melanogaster

Strange... known genetic mutations producing immediate and drastically different observable phenotypes. Strange indeed.

oh really?? ITS STILL A FLY! it didnt become a different insect altogether.. so how does mutation result in a new catagory of animal? for example, youre claiming the random mutation of an ancient reptile, led to the creation of the bird.. you cant verify that

Quote:
What might happen if phenotypes were separated geographically? If they stop interbreeding? Eventual inability to interbreed? In other words, formation of a new species?

right, within its archetype. cats didnt become dogs didnt become horses. fish didnt become aphibians, which didnt become reptiles. that is claim which has never been verified, but through pure speculation is presupposed as fact

Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelet

that was absolutely ridiculous. so, mammals originated from this species? birds originated from this species? and where are the millions of intermediates which should litter the fossil records? thats right.. almost entirely absent. if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated

ANTIMASON

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:37 AM

Quote:
KWICKO - Last I heard, there was quite a bit of consensus that at least some dinosaurs were warm-blooded. Yet they were still reptiles. Odd, huh? And yes, birds came from reptiles. And yes, it WAS quite a genetic mutation. It was also an evolutionary leap.

that was a claim made to try to tenously connect birds to reptiles, since the distinctions are quite profound.

birds have hollow bones. the birds feather has literally NOTHING in common with a scale, it has interlocking barbs, it is designed for flight/insulation, it comes in many varieties.. it is nothing like a reptilian scale. also, birds have unique beaks designed to fill their specific niches.. reptiles dont have beaks, let alone genes capable of the varieties of beaks witnessed in nature. also, birds have lungs that constantly circulate air, so that they have a steady stream flowing through them at any given time. no reptile has a lung system even remotely comparable. i could go on, but its pointless

Quote:
As arrogant as ASSUMING there's a giant sky bully watching over you? As arrogant as ASSUMING that you were "designed" in the most minute detail by a creator who was also busy designing and creating an entire universe, and that said creator actually had the spare time to design every tiniest detail of your brain (he did shoddy work on yours, by the way - I'd demand a refund), but then decided to just let you wander off and do whatever you want? THAT is arrogance, both on your part and on the part of your silly "creator". Sorry, but I'm not buying; you'll have to go sell crazy somewhere else.

hey, if you want to believe your origins can be found in some prehistoric fish, or that clyde the orangutan is your great great ancestor, be my quest. how that makes me the fool is anyones guess

ANTIMASON

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You mean in the same way you can't IMAGINE a platypus evolving naturally?

thats just it.. it takes an incredible imagination to pretend that mammals came from any other catagory of animal, such as reptiles or aphibians.

where are the more evolved primates? we still have the inferior de-volved versions which supposedly preceded the missing links. shouldnt the more fit 'missing links' be around? instead, you could fit all the fossils on a single table.. not a whole lot of evidence

and where did primates originate? we have yet to discover a fossil of a primate that shared an ancestor with any other mammal. the catagories are distinct, they always have been. there is no overlap.

if progressive evolution were true, there would be millions of fossils of intermediates, animals spanning catagories.. but there arent. according to your logic, there is no difference between birds or reptiles or amphibians.. yet clearly their is. its almost mind numbing

CHRISISALL

Friday, July 3, 2009 2:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
if thats the best you can do, i feel sufficiently vindicated

i (Ooops, let me capitalize that, it's the least I can do),I resent the fact that you say evolution is beyond God's capacity to initiate.
You heathen.
A bipedal heathen at that.
I see a pillar of salt in your future.

The laughing Chrisisall

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE