questionposter

Wow, I can't believe I'm enough of a nerd to actually recognize that specific neutron star name. I don't think your using the proper terminology. "Weight" refers to the force a mass at rest exerts on the ground. I think you mean either "mass" or "energy", which are equivalent, and it is true that its relative to you, if you move towards the neutron star it has a higher energy and therefore higher relative mass from your frame of reference. Similarly, if both of you are moving slow, the total kinetic energy the neutron star has is less to your frame of reference. Speed does effect the "mass" of an object because mass and energy are equivalent, and varying speeds effect the energy. Both mass and energy distort the fabric of space. Traveling slowly towards it decreases it's energy from your frame of reference, and traveling fast towards it increases its energy from your frame of reference, and consequently it's relative mass. I'm not familiar with the exact term of "hyper-velocity" and I can't really find a clear meaning, but it is completely possible for a black hole to travel at fast speeds. There's even stars orbiting the black hole in the center of the galaxy at 40km per second. However, it is not possible for them to travel faster than light. The warp drive has yet to be seen.

Well I don't think I said anything that is particularly against that idea, and there is still a possibility of a god, but the possibility of a Christian or Muslim or Jewish god is even smaller because of all the contradictions those assumptions can lead to. But I suppose your idea is more of a metaphorical view of god, as the entirety of nature itself?

"nothing" doesn't exist right now.

You should be more specific. Catch 22? Post #22? The book Catch 22 and not the phrase? What? If it is a catch 22, how so? There exists the possibility I could just one day walk through a wall. How is that a catch 22? Because that's how I see the possibility of god as something that could one day just say "hey look at me, I exist" to prove it's existence.

Jesus is proof in the eyes of the bible, which you don't seem to believe in, and I also believe Jesus was just a normal person, not the son of a god, I'm talking about a being that comes out and says "look at me, I can bend matter and time to my will".

I think due to possibly hitting the side of the tube as well as the Earth's shifting rotation and lack of perfectly equivalent gravity, an over-damped harmonic oscillator could model this problem and a person falling in would eventually come to a stop near the center. At first a person would approach the other side and then fall back, maybe even though to grab the ledge and get out, but otherwise they would just gradually lose momentum and come to a stop after swinging past the center over and over. Though I suppose it does also depend on the angle that the tube is placed. If it goes through the center of the Earth, then the oscillator can model it, but if it's at a angle and cuts through like only a quarter of the Earth, and you can probably just crawl through.

To be fair, black holes were once "made up", and even the theory that there was a smallest constituent of matter, there still exists the possibility that at any moment god "could" show that it exists.

I think it's pretty close, but I don't think the semantics are completely right. To an outside observer, time doesn't "seem" to stop at the event horizon, it DOES stop at the event horizon, but to a frame of reference inside the event horizon, theoretically local space should be effected in the same way as the observer. It's not exactly so much that laws "break down", because I mean, gravity still exists, but we just don't have a cohesive theory that can explain both the relativity and quantum mechanics of a singularity black hole and we can't actually observe anything inside it. Otherwise though, the interpretation of time on Earth I think is correct, because from the frame of reference of Earth, time is moving faster than anyone who has crossed the event horizon.

Regardless, it is still logical that before everything, there was nothing.

I didn't say specifically that it supported the idea of god, I didn't even say I supported the idea of a flood, though the occurring of nothing more than a flood is the correct interpretation of what I implied. I don't think Noah actually had "every" animals on his boat, but it's still possible the Black Sea's water level was rising rapidly and a guy built a boat with all the species he knew of. This shows evidence that religious accounts aren't always pulled out of thin air necessarily, but rather that they are inspired from real human experiences, which could logically explain why many people connect to religion.

That's more like it, but even with those translations, it's possible someone meant "land as far as they know" which from them could have meant the world, but nonetheless, the black sea formed in recent geological history which could have accounted for the stories. http://fajardo-acost...timeline-00.htm This says it was formed 5,000 years ago, but I've seen things that said 12,000 years ago. More than anything, I think the stories in the bible were meant to be lessons, but some people abused the interpretations for their own benefit which is where problems occurred.

Well the black sea formed nearly 12,000 years ago, and it is a story that could be have been passed down orally, other than that, you still can't say it couldn't logically happen if god can do anything. It is only improbable with our current knowledge or unknown how it could be achieved with our current knowledge, nothing more. Hundreds of years ago they were mainstream perhaps, but more than that things like those were issued from authority, and people would often only carry them out as orders, and since people back then couldn't read, they could only take the higher authority as word since only higher authority had the ability to read the bible. I'm pretty sure I have never said in my ENTIRE life that god is "most likely" real, I merely stated there is a possibility of it being real since it cannot be proven or disprove or that relative to other people it is more likely to them. Sure there's evidence to support it: How did everything get here? Why is physics the way it is? We are here, so we must have been created by something, and logically it could have been created by a being that can do anything. There is no such thing as a "flawed" axiom, an axiom is simply any statement which you use build logical conclusions off of. There can therefore only be illogical conclusions based off of axioms. I can say "1+1=1", but it does equal one with a modulation of 1. Or I could say "this sentence is false", it's just a statement, but it would be illogical to say "this statement is false, therefore it is true". Maybe the depictions of god are inaccurate. I'm surprised especially at this remark considering religion has been around for as long as humans have existed and those are very strict scriptures, and there's over 7 billion people in the world which means there's 7 billion different views on the subject. Actually it isn't a personal attack because I am not insulting your intelligence, I am making a conjecture about your effort to understand different views in this issue. If you actually talked to religious people you'd know many don't take every thing in the bible as being true, but rather as lessons as well, and like to think of god as being logical in many ways. I can see how that could be considered a personal attack and I apologize for the insult, but not for the evidence. It's part of Muslim religion, a dominant religion in the middle-east for hundreds of years, to pray 5-times a day in the direction of Mecca on a clean mat, and it's even mandatory in that religion to go visit Mecca at some point in your life. Other than the lifestyles, I don't know what other evidence to provide. When did god specifically state he can't do everything? It doesn't mean it can't be logical, it simply means there is a chance of it being wrong. I can still form a logical sequence of steps and have it be either right or wrong. Just like the the Bhor model of an atom. There's loads of mathematics to support it, but it turned out to be wrong, and then look at Newton's light. There's lots of mathematics to support at the time that it was wrong, but it turned out to be right. You somehow had the audacity to ask for evidence that atheists and religious people are similar without considering both sides consist of no more than humans, and humans are humans. Seeing as how over 75% of the world is religious, I would say that it is more probable that religious people are not actually "broken".

I never assumed it was true, I said "if" it was true, and there is evidence to support a universe that works in that manner. I don't see where you get this from. Do you think if your swinging on a swing and I graph it that you will actually touch the ground? No, yet it still says you touch the ground at "i" times somethings. With "before the universe", it works like that. I'm not saying that all values before the universe existed were "i" in any way, I'm saying there were not real (the normal term, not the mathematical term that is meant to distinguish from imaginary or complex values) values that could account for anything, but it can still be logically concluded that if we go back before the universe was created, there could only have been nothing, in the same way that I can say we can logically conclude a person on a swing hits the ground at "i" something. I understand your point or how you think about it about how since time didn't existed before the universe there was no previous time to count back to in order to find nothingness.

I suppose it is nice to see someone besides me (who doesn't even believe in god) to defend religious attributions, but this is still no place for blatant preaching. Your religious right? You believe god exists, but do you obviously do not advocate violence. Do you study science as well? Do you think science is the language of the devil? Do you believe you cannot sit on furniture which women have menstruated on? Do you believe people who have cheated on other people deserve to be stoned to death?

That merely proves that with our current understanding that WE couldn't do it, but logically if something can do anything, it could make room on Noah's ark. And those people are called "extremists", which obviously not every religious person is. And besides, what would you do if there was some high authority that said some ridiculous thing that obviously went against your view of god as a being that was compassionate but that could also kill you for speaking out against them in any way? That was never in question by me until you brought it up. It doesn't how matter how ridiculous it is from your point of reference or how you like to automatically justify anything that has to do with religion along the lines of being improbable, it is unprovable one way or another which leaves room for belief. http://www.sciencefo...ou-proof-proof/ It's strange that someone who doesn't believe in the bible would be acting as if all the horrible bible stories were real. Ok, maybe you put a couple calories of brain energy into it, but this issue has had a lot more thought put into it than that. How about you get off your damn computer and actually talk to some different people? Even reverends I've talked to like to think of god as being logical, and even Newton did http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton's_religious_views It's no wonder why religious people hate atheists when many atheists assume religious people are illogical children in some sense. Once again, there is no scientific research to back this notion that religions people are broken, the debate might as well be whether or not god exists. Holy crap did you even go to high school or even take philosophy in college? Or just Sunday school? http://www.islamicit.../ihame/ref4.htm They even teach that in social studies classes according to my nephew and even I remember learning about those things when reviewing world time-lines and the history of mathematics. Actually, it WAS religion that allowed them to prosper because they followed their religion more than they researched and their religion advocated forming a decent community and did not say science was the work of the devil (that's ONLY Christianity and only during a few time periods), something which didn't really happen before someone said "you go to hell for stealing and killing your neighbors". We are descended from chimp-like creatures, just look at how chimps act in nature. I didn't ignore it, it just didn't make sense. If god would in fact be able to do anything, it would have the ability to not show everyone that it can do everything. Well I sure haven't seen him say anything good about religions. Atheists are no better, if they were born in the ancient era before we had all this science and variety of philosophical views and someone came up with logical conclusions as to how there could be a being that made everything, most would have just believed in god as well. Furthermore, there's people who believe/believed in a more compassionate god, like oh I don't know Martin Luther King (Jr.). Then there's people who believe in a logical god like Isaac Newton. You can't condemn a person for believing in a religion based on it's most ancient of scriptures and all it's little details, even John Stewart said that, things change, views change, and there's around 7 billion people in the world. By the way, I thought you would have known this already, but http://www.telegraph...c-the-same.html

You haven't really provided any logical evidence for this. Go ask a psychiatrist, I learned the environment thing from asking one myself. All people like you are doing is making matters worse between religious people and non-religious people. There is no possible way mono-theism could have survived this long if it was that illogical and it actually didn't do one single thing for people, unless you believe there is some invisible microchip in people's brains that plant that thought. I don't know why you don't have the capability to understand that religion can bring people together as much as it can tare them apart. This evidence thing works both ways. Let's see some evidence that just because god would "be able to do anything" it it means it "has" to do everything. If it can do anything, then logically it has the capability to not prove it.

Well there's this on laser cooling, http://en.wikipedia....i/Laser_cooling as well as footage of an individual atom http://www.scienceda...80222095358.htm And how is it not the uncertainty principal with aiming it considering I suppose it could be more likely that its a group of atoms, but it's hard to think such a dangerous thing would be used in cancer treatment if it wasn't accurate. Well photons aren't infinitely delocalized before you observe them, they have to have some kind of parameters of the 3-dimensional space they occupy before measurement otherwise we would never measure them or measure them instantaneously. I want to know what those parameters are.

I think jaungra needs to actually explain what he thinks a particle actually is according to his sources. Otherwise I don't see why he's making a big deal that a particle can't possibly be a wave. Also, the same pattern IS formed by waves Even pop-science knows that. Quantum wave mechanics wasn't pulled out of thin air. Not only that, but the term "duality" isn't mentioned because that's not the proper name, the proper name is "quantum harmonic oscillator". http://en.wikipedia....onic_oscillator

Well I'm constantly asking a different question so you can better see what I'm trying to get at since my previous questions aren't well interpreted. Well I can see how the uncertainty principal would come into play, but we have lasers that can shoot at individual atoms and get rid of cancer, it's hard to think I couldn't hit a whole person with just 1. But isn't it only a frame of a radio-wave after you measure it? What is it before measurement? You can't constantly observe it before you observe it, so how do you tell how localized it was before your measurement? How do you have a frame of reference of something before you measure it?

No, according to modern QM a single electron DOES make an interference pattern, but you don't directly see it with your eyes because it's just one electron. It's only after time of many many electrons interfering with themselves can you see the pattern. The same exact pattern can be formed by waves.

Can you logically show the correlation between the release of a chemical and how something "deserves" to get wiped out? You should consider it tricky because not even science knows what it is, so I don't see how you can. I don't think there is an overall "state" unless you can be more specific, nor is there anything that "determines" the processes of your brain. I have never heard of anything like that in my entire life. You do not have to automatically do whatever your emotions suggest, this is proof that they are simply chemicals independent from consciousness. Emotions effect your decisions, some more than others, and that's it. They are just chemicals that cause a feeling or compulsion to do something, it's the choices to act on them or not that matter anyway. Strictly speaking, "good" and "evil" are just words humans made up.

How does the having ability to do something mean you have to do it? I have the ability to jump into the volcano. Does that mean I'm going to do it? I have the ability to drown a sack of puppies. Does that mean I'm going to do it? Actually, I'm not even sure if "god can do anything" is actually a part of the Holy bible, that might have just been a vibe I got from it.

Read my posts more carefully and you will see I said that exact same thing. True, but one has to consider the evidence yet the fact we can't actually prove it one way or another.

If I ask for the amount of time before the universe started existing, it would be meaningless, but a lack of everything by definition means nothing, and before the universe, not even time existed, which seems pretty nothing to me. Whether the universe had an actual beginning is something we can't answer right now. If you can't think of it that way, think of it like "i", or the square root of negative one. It's not a real value, but if you multiply "i" by itself, you still get negative one. Even though there wasn't real values to correlate to the physical existence of nothing, mathematically and logically before the universe there was literally no thing.

For whatever moral basis there is, there is something else with an equal and opposite view. This is why no particular moral is right or wrong, and why it is ultimately up to free will. Let's say you feed a starving human. With what? a plant will require sacrificing it's offspring or itself, or an animal gives up it's life. In that instance, for one thing it is beneficial to live, and for the other it is beneficial for that same thing to die.