jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (71 posts)

Then the Entire Universe was Smaller than an Atom ~ Infinitely Small....

  1. God shet profile image62
    God shetposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/11924246_f520.jpg

    So they say about the Creation of the Cosmos. Isn't that imagination interesting?

    1. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      It's true, if you take out all space, you are left with all quarks which are the billionth the size of an atom... they don't know if there's anything smaller than quarks. It's like we're all just made of air... hot air in some cases. Even the air itself is full of particles.

      1. God shet profile image62
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        space & quarks ~ they must be made of even smaller entities than themselves.

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The imaginative powers of the human mind are limitless, aren't they?  Even another universe that has a single intelligent entity with a lifespan extending to eternity both ways and that decided one day to make this one.  Worse is that the tale has existed for millenia without a single shred of evidence to support it!

      1. God shet profile image62
        God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The 'evidence' is coming soon. Stay tuned.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Yep.  Been coming for 10,000 years.

          1. God shet profile image62
            God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Well, it would take a lot less time than Facebook.

            1. Link10103 profile image79
              Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Even taking this as a joke, i just cannot see the sense or correlation behind this.

            2. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Except that it has already taken longer than facebook; the evidence is still not in while facebook has been around for a while.

              1. God shet profile image62
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                How long has 'Facebook' been around?



                I do not see governments around the world funding a collaborated research project to gift this service of connectivity to the entire world ~ that we now call Facebook. It was the private effort of an individual. And if you follow the line of conversation with Zark Zuckerberg at 'zeitgeist ~ it becomes pretty clear that he wasn't at all sure about the practicality of Facebook. It was just a faint idea that he had conceived somehow.

                Now, human beings had needed something like Facebook from the day one that they landed into this world.


                Carrier pigeon→ postman→ telegraph→ telephone→ email→ Facebook ... what's next now?

                1. Link10103 profile image79
                  Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  .......sigh

              2. God shet profile image62
                God shetposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                The need for connectivity is something more basic than the need for the evidence of God's existence. 'Facebook' is a very recent invention. But the need for something like Facebook existed from the beginning when human beings were engaged in a social life. But these things occur in a linear order. Without the inventions of 'personal computer' and the 'internet' ~ no one could've imagined the possibility and existence of something like 'Twitter', 'Instagram' or 'Facebook'. These things (significantly) owe their existence to the 'collective learning' of humanity.



                I am trying to establish the fact the God is a part of the totality of the reality that we inhabit. It's quite like the scenario of convincing aborigines that a city like LA or Las Vegas exist in the same world where they live in. They might only believe you if you show them a video or photographs of these places. And there is still much doubt how much even these (photographic) 'evidences' would convince them.

                People have always demanded 'strong' evidence for God's existence from people who worship this 'entity'. But you can not get that evidence in a single day. I am saying that it's possible to prove that God exists. But my knowledge owes much of its existence to the 'collective learning' of humanity and what people discovered much before I was around this planet. It has been a linear progression. And just as Facebook is unimaginable without pc and the internet ~ likewise I can't imagine to be standing where I'm now without the the events and people who came here much before me, and affected the world the way that we know it now.

    3. kess profile image61
      kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Interesting but vain...meaning that it will serve no useful purpose.
      Why, because the question is comes from a place of ignorance of exactly what creation above the universe actually is.
      Then it is inevitable that they would put turtle upon turtles, which this question implies.
      No matter how awesomely small something is, cut it half and you get something smaller.

      Creation for it to be creation must be stable.
      So when one behold an unstable heaven and an unstable earth, and say ah this it's creation,
      Then it is obvious that that one's truth is a lie and their creative good is false.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        "No matter how awesomely small something is, cut it half and you get something smaller."

        Umm.  Not quite.  Although unproven as of yet, the concept of a Planck length seems to fit all we know of space.

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

        Meaning that there is a limit to how small a length is possible.  Cutting a thing that small results in the same size; it is not possible to be any smaller than 1.616199(97)×10−35 metres.

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Lol
          It's this the kind off responses science provide, or it is just you speaking?

          No wonder your understanding is .....umm ....limited

          1. Link10103 profile image79
            Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I hear a donkey braying

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Unbelievingly  M E A N ! !

              1. Link10103 profile image79
                Link10103posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Cant imagine how subtly insulting the intelliegence of someone else without actually countering what they said is much better.

                My opinion of course.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I must have missed something - I don't see anything "subtle" about it.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    ….was this the offending reply by Kess?!
                    "No wonder your understanding is .....umm ….limited."
                    Yes...
                    Oh!  Not very nice either.

            2. kess profile image61
              kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Thank you thank you.

              It is a compliment when a comment is genuine.

              Don't think I am being sarcastic.

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            This is much like saying that there is nothing to worry about if one is on a train traveling towards a wall because the train will never hit the wall because it will alway be half way. You can always cut the  distance in half right? So it will never hit the wall?

            1. Jomine Jose profile image80
              Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              You should have applauded him in his success of writing a meaningful sentence after trying all these years!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                M E A N !  This is not a roast, by the way. ( I would get banned in an instant if I said something like that to you…)

                1. Jomine Jose profile image80
                  Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  How come?
                  You do know that in an attempt to sound mysterious and intelligent he mostly write meaningless poetry like verses. I saw you trying to explain what he wrote the other day.
                  " the question is comes from a place of ignorance"
                  And this is not mean?
                  Whatever a theist say is not mean?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    He knows English as a second language. I got banned for criticizing someone's writing who claimed to be dyslexic. It is not polite. It is unkind. I had to learn how to be respectful even when disagreeing. You should too.

                    We all know what he meant.
                    Most questions do come from a place of ignorance, b t w. So?

                    Also, if you become offensive, the other is likely to become defensive. Battles are so easy to start. But why engage in battles?

                  2. kess profile image61
                    kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Oh thank you I did not know that

                2. kess profile image61
                  kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Leave the man alone he can only speak the thing he knows

          3. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Did you study the link provided?  Did you understand it?  Even Wikipedia gives the basic derivation of the concept.

            No, it is not just me; this is a commonly held concept in the world of physics.

            1. kess profile image61
              kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Common does not make it true...

              It is also true that most peyote will die...

              This is so because most believe a lie.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Then you did not read the link?  Just assume it is false because it doesn't agree with your unsupported opinions?  Doesn't seem like a good way to search for truth...

                1. kess profile image61
                  kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  How many hyper links have you and your friends followed and is still following?

                  Here is some good advise, truth is not found at the end of links, do yourself a favor and stop it.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You will never know, will you, if there is truth there or not if you don't look?  Of course, it also means never having to understand that you were wrong, but if that is preferable to learning, so be it.  It is, as always, your choice.

      2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        What is wrong with just allowing someone to put forth an interesting idea? Why do you have to restrict freedom and exploration of thought?  Why?

        1. kess profile image61
          kessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          No one is being restricted feel free to explore at will, I will tell you that people remain ignorant because they refuse to think differently.

          To keep people in the Dark is to say what they have already heard and know.

          I constrain my self to speak the truth.

          Sorry if you think that is limiting, I assure it is not.

          Honestly I expected you to already have an understanding of these things.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Yes, that is an interesting thought. I am sure that is exactly how all this creation began: a teeny spark of light… which  eventually evolved into hydrogen, etc. Its beyond known words, of course...

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What is beyond words - that matter and energy are interchangeable?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Well, maybe you have the words: what is a better word than evolution as far as the process involving a spark of energy which becomes the first element on the periodic table?

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Probably a mathematical one: E=MC^2

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            But,  how did this energy form/become the element, Hydrogen?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Heat and pressure will do wonders in nature.  Put too much hydrogen under too much heat and pressure and you light a nuclear fire, creating energy.  Put too much energy into too small a space and you make hydrogen (we think - as far as I know we've never done it).

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
                Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                ...what created the small space! some type of energy womb? ( lol ) Must've contained all of nature...

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps it was a womb.  Giving birth to the universe.  Strange creature, for sure, to have a womb like that!

    2. Sed-me profile image82
      Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have no idea what FB has to do with it... but my husband was telling me a fascinating story about the fact that when the earth was created, it happened faster than the speed of light. It took an accountant to discover this. Scientist couldn't come up with the right equations... it never fit. Until this accountant took out the speed of light variable and just did the math... and it matched up. The scientists said it was impossible, that nothing moved faster than the speed of light, but this was before there was even light. Sorry for the lousy retelling, but it was really interesting.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I believe the math tells us the early expansion of the universe was much faster than what was expected. I'm not sure about the accountant part, as accountants are not mathematicians, they simply count stuff.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          We typically think of space as expanding from the edge (I do anyway), but what if the expansion was from the center?  What does that say about the speed of light in already existing space that is being forced away from the center by new space being created/expanded? 

          Or, if the space containing light is expanding itself and carrying the light with it, what does THAT say about the speed of light?

          Just tossing concepts and thoughts...

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Relativity is a difficult concept for most (me included) to wrap our heads around. Was the initial expansion before light? It's a difficult concept to grasp for the vast majority of us, for example one would think that if protons are traveling at the speed of light in one direction in the LHC and protons are traveling in the other direction at the same speed it would be like a colision at twice the speed of light. But I'm told that's not the case.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              LOL - yes, it is a very difficult concept to grasp.  I'm not confident at all that I have a grasp on it.

              But think of two trains travelling at the speed of light in opposite directions.  If they collide it would be not like 2 trains colliding, but like 100 trains colliding.  The energy goes up, but not the speed, in other words (it's not 4 trains colliding because the relationship is not linear and 100 is just a number grab).

              But beyond that - if they start 1 light year apart do they collide in 6 months or 12?  I can't answer that and don't understand how to explain a 6 month figure in terms of what one train engineer sees except that time changes as well (and they hit in a matter of seconds, not months).

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Here is the difficult part of for me. If the trains miss each other on one has a speed radar gun and if the one with the speed radar gun points it at the other does the gun not say twice the speed of light?
                I mean if a cope is travelling at 40 miles per hour and someone is traveling at 40 m/ph in the opposite direction doesn't the radar gun say 80 miles per hour? Does the radar gun know it's traveling at 40 miles per hour? It sometimes seems logic get thrown out the window, but deeper thought rather than intuition tells us the truth.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it doesn't say 2XC.  It doesn't say anything because the extreme high energy photons hitting have burned it out.  Or because it cannot receive signals at double the frequency it was designed for.

                  Or so I understand.  That's the crux; that the energy level (frequency) goes way up, not the speed.  It's why we see red shifted galaxies moving away from us; the light reaching us is travelling at the normal C, but the frequency we detect has shifted down (or up for those stars moving towards us).

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Right, it just goes against our instinct. Which is what I've been saying about instinct, it gives us the wrong answers.

  3. Kathryn L Hill profile image86
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    lol

 
working