So they say about the Creation of the Cosmos. Isn't that imagination interesting?
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.
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!
Well, it would take a lot less time than Facebook.
Even taking this as a joke, i just cannot see the sense or correlation behind this.
Except that it has already taken longer than facebook; the evidence is still not in while facebook has been around for a while.
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
It's this the kind off responses science provide, or it is just you speaking?
No wonder your understanding is .....umm ....limited
Cant imagine how subtly insulting the intelliegence of someone else without actually countering what they said is much better.
My opinion of course.
I must have missed something - I don't see anything "subtle" about it.
Thank you thank you.
It is a compliment when a comment is genuine.
Don't think I am being sarcastic.
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?
You should have applauded him in his success of writing a meaningful sentence after trying all these years!
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…)
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?
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?
I only speak English,
my predictive text messes sometimesbut I don't believe it is hat often.
With respect, you have never been disrespectful in the same way again. For that you have my respect, and your message is heard. You have my respect, although I disagree, I have respect.
No, he writes good English when he wants to mislead others in thinking that he has an argument. Most of the time he is just being smug and insulting to cover the fact tjat he has no logical arguments. I have seen his posts for last three years.
That is not what he meant.
You tell him.
Leave the man alone he can only speak the thing he knows
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.
Common does not make it true...
It is also true that most peyote will die...
This is so because most believe a lie.
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...
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.
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.
Learn this phase ' ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of truth'
Wow, kess, what is your actual complaint with the OP?
If you go back to my original response and read it with a less critical eye you might find that you would not need to ask me this question.
I did not understand *your* critical eye. Or *why* you were critical…Surely the universe started as a small spark of light.. none of us have any idea... we are all just yakking and surmising along with the scientists. Why do you coil from such a discussion? Could God not have been one small speck of light at one time? Creation had to start somewhere! Einstein surmised God is everywhere in the universe. I take it you do not like this concept? Why not?
You have already answered your own questions ...
The yak yakking is pointless....
Especially so, when you are not expecting an answer.
Even more so, because there is an answer.
But since you ascribe ignorance to all, you cannot help but include yourself
Which ultimately exclude your self from finding the answer.
To help you to know, I have ask that you reconsider the idea of creation.
Okay... since you know so much, what is the answer? And why does our speculating negate or otherwise affect your answer? Why or how does it interfere with my finding the answer? Reality is reality. We see reality all around us… and within us.
Your combative mood causes you to take my post incorrectly.
and I have nothing to prove, so believe what you desire.
I will desist.
My mood is not combative. I suspect you do not have an answer. Even if you did, it would probably not detract form the validity of this conversation.
EDIT: How can the story of Genesis detract from the ultimate reality which science reveals? Or vice versa? Does science detract from the story of Genesis? Do the facts outweigh the historic explanation handed down throughout the centuries in words words and more words?
PS… You alluded to this reality as I have quoted you: "there is an answer." It is contained in "the idea of creation."
I have no idea what you are talking about.
If you were not combative you would not challenge me.....
Nor ask me question me in a doubtful manner.
If to you, I do not know then to you, I do not know.There is no argument there.
No skin off my back
I would like you to keyboard your idea of creation.
Simple as that. (If your answer is to go and read Genesis… been there done that.) If you do not believe in discussing such matters, because they are beyond the scope of the Bible, why did you enter the discussion? Who is the one being combative, I ask in all calmness?
And you might learn this one: 'Refuse to learn and remain steeped in ignorance for a lifetime'.
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?
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.
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...
What is beyond words - that matter and energy are interchangeable?
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?
But, how did this energy form/become the element, Hydrogen?
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).
...what created the small space! some type of energy womb? ( lol ) Must've contained all of nature...
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.
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.
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...
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.
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).
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.
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).
Right, it just goes against our instinct. Which is what I've been saying about instinct, it gives us the wrong answers.
Not really. Ever have a low flying plane go over at high speed? At an air show a B2B went over at just a few hundred feet and near the speed of sound. We didn't hear it until very nearly on top of us (whereupon it was deafening), but then we didn't expect to, either. The speed of sound (at a given air density, temperature, etc.) is also unchangeable. The frequency very definitely changes though - we detect that every time a train goes by!
So the sound emitted by the speeding plane doesn't travel any faster than that emitted by a stationary one. At that point the analogy breaks down because we CAN go faster than the speed of sound and because there is no time dilation to confuse us as observers also travelling at high speed.
*edit* and yes, instinct (and intuition) are infamous for wrong answers.
by John Harper4 years ago
"This is the theory of a leading Oxford University scientist who claims to have evidence of stars and galaxies that existed long before the universe as we know it formed, The Daily Mail reported.Professor Roger...
by Bikash jha6 years ago
DO you think they exist.
by Alexander A. Villarasa2 years ago
So what does Chemistry have anything to do with astrophysics, specifically the beginning of the universe as proposed in that Big Bang of a theory. PLENTY it turns out. As proposed by chemists at the Free...
by My Esoteric23 months ago
I have heard many times that one reason the "inflation theory" has been challenged is the argument that is if it were true then the expansion would have to happened at a speed faster than light, in violation...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.