My son thinks so, and now I'm beginning to think it could be true - has this theory already been considered? I mean, it's impossible to know what the sun is really made of...all we know for sure, is that its still burning. It could have a solid mass at its core....
I'm thinking that when the sun burned out, it caused the ice age.
No I don't think the moon was ever a sun, it is what it appears a lump of space debris.
The Earth in its infancy was high speed spinning lump of molten rock, gathering all sorts of flying rocks asteroids, meteorites and the odd comet or two.
On at least one occasion the Earth was hit by a Mars sized object which knocked this planet 23 degrees out of true and threw enough debris into orbit to eventually form the moon.
By the way the Sun has never burnt out, not yet anyway, as it runs out of fuel it will dramatically increase in size into what is known as a Red Giant.
Not that we will be around to see it as the Earth will be completely consumed as the sun expands.
Ice ages have an even more complex explanation, the Earth’s orbit around the sun is not always circular but can be more elliptical in shape.
Nor is the sun's activity and energy a constant, if the sun's activity slows down and stabilises the energy reaching us is less and the overall climatic effect will be much cooler.
I realise this is an extremely over simplified explanation so I don't want too much stick from all the budding Einstein’s out there !
I appreciate your reply, however, what you say you state as fact when its impossible to know whether it is actually factual.
btw - I wasn't speaking of the current sun having burned out, but was considering whether the current moon was once another sun.
I was just contemplating that if our Moon was a sun it would have exploded instead of cooled down to it's current state. I claim my ignorance though.
Still No !
Like all planets and moons in our solar system and I suppose even our own Sun it is highly likely that they are all made up of bits and pieces from a previous exploding stars(suns) or stars.
This is the cycle of the Universe.
But no our moon is not a burnt out star....
I suppose it's possible since there's no truely accepted theory yet, though there are very, very widely accepted ones.
The claim about it causing the ice age though seems pretty far-fetched. For starters, the ice age came well after the moon was already established as the moon. Secondly, if the moon was once a star this close to our Earth, there's no way this planet would have survived. And if it did, losing a star would do far more than just cause an ice age to a planet.
You suppose it is possible????
Yet another vote for saving money by not even bothering to educate anyone as this is how they turn out anyway. Why waste the money?
well, it was just a thought. lol thanks for your thoughtful reply, Vcize.
Ya did a excellent job of explaining it!
Ya just forgot one important facet of earth's changing atmospheric conditions: "precession."
The earth has a 26+k year wobble on it's N pole axis.
I always understood that when a sun "goes nova" it explodes, leaving a black hole, but first it enlarges to a red dwarf ( kinda counterintuitive, no?) And yes these have been seen through telescopes and recorded, though many million miles away. If one happened near us it would have destroyed the earth.
you mean like, in another galaxy? that's cool! now I gotta look it up! lol
Almost right.... As certain types of stars reaches the end of it's life it expands into a Red Giant. Our sun will do this and consume the Earth.
The next stage will be to collapse to a White dwarf, I don't think there is enough mass for our sun ever to become a Black hole.
No. The moon was never a sun.
Consider the text from the bible.
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
A light is a self contained source. The moon in its current state is just a reflection of the Suns light. It is my theory that when the moon went out....the flood happened. Think about it. A pre flood atmosphere contained more suspended water, and at night would need some source of heat to keep it suspended in the air, else it would fall. When the moon went out, the rains did fall. Before the flood everything was watered with mist yes? It states a mist rose from the ground. Ok, the earths core is molten, as you go out from that core the molten becomes rock, granite, and then water and earth and eventually the soil we all walk on. A fluctuation in night and day temps would indeed cause steam/mist to rise from the ground when the air temp cooled. It was a perfect system! So yes, according to the bible, the moon was once a sun, small albeit
"So yes, according to the bible, the moon was once a sun, small albeit"
Then the bible is once again wrong, for the moon was never a sun. It is too small and not constructed of what remains when a sun dies.
Take a look at this and let me know what you think. There are two deffenite schools of thought at play here, evolution, and creation. In light of evolution, the magma ocean theory, and its cooling shortly after its origination. And then creation, where there indeed was a magma ocean, consistent with the findings of the study done of the samples taken from the moon.....seems pretty feasible to me the moon was as they say, having a magma ocean on its surface. I enjoy talking about this stuff, it makes me dig a little deeper, I have learned more then I once knew and am finding evidence to support my theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ … f_the_Moon
Perhaps my use of the word "sun" is misapplied. Rather the moon was a significant heat source all on its own, enough so that it would have had an effect on the atmosphere of earth, just as it does on our gravity, oceans, seasons, etc, today.
No it was not.
I'm no Einstein but from what I know a sun explodes when it's cycle has ended.
how do we know this? I mean, has anyone ever witnessed a sun explosion and left a record of it?
I'm thinking of any kind of fire - the fire continues to burn until:
1. there's no more oxygen to support it
2. the object that is burning has been completely burnt
3. another substance (such as water) is used to put out the flames
Why wouldn't the same hold true for the sun?
I admit. All we have are theories. I submit to the possibility. I believe the universe is boundless in possibilities. What may happen to one star does not necessarily hold true to all stars.
I believe it's possible!
A fire, like burning wood, operates on the process of combustion
The sun operates on the process of fusion, which combines elements together at incredible temperatures and emits light.
right - but how do we really know how the sun operates? we can't know for sure, now can we?
(btw - not to be a pest or anything, but all fire gives off light)
how do we know?
The theory of gravity (which has yet to be disproven) states that the more matter in a given area, the stronger the forces pulling them together.
The theory of fusion (which has not only NOT been disproven, but has been USED to build bombs, and thus can't be incorrect), states that when 2 chunks of matter have a certain force pushing them towards one another, they will fuse together.
We have measured the mass of the sun by looking at the orbits of planets and by other means.
We have found that this much mass in that much area DOES exert enough force on the matter inside to fuse atoms together.
Not only is there "enough" gravity, there is enough gravity to BLOW UP TRILLIONS OF TONS OF MASS EACH SECOND.
THE SUN IS HUGE
IT'S VERY VERY VERY HUGE
The theory of fusion (which has not only NOT been disproven, but has been USED to build bombs, and thus can't be incorrect), states that when 2 chunks of matter have a certain force pushing them towards one another, they will fuse together.
Understood - except in relation to the sun. So, does this mean the sun is actually two chunks of matter?
What I was saying was, we don't really know if the sun has a solid core. We assume it doesn't but we can't possibly know for sure.
okay, I think I'm getting it. blow up trillions of tons of mass each second - means, not a solid core. (uh, ya! duh!! lol)
So, in other words, the sun could be what is known as a supernova (an exploding star/planet, right?) and as soon as the explosion comes to an end, so does life on earth?
okay, thanks much! I think I felt better believing in creation!! lol
So, if all this is true, what is the purpose of life? It can't be survival - because it sounds like there's no chance of survival.....
Don't waste your time looking for a "purpose" for life. There is none.
Life is but a "happening."
Once "it" has been realized, the processes of natural selection go to work.
The live organism begins to mutate within and evolution begins a tortuous movement toward creating a perfect life form.
That is simplistic but SEEMINGLY, "fact."
There is a "goal" for all life. It is survival.
the sun can't have a solid core because it's so big.
Inside the core is hydrogen being crushed by gravity.
Lots of matter ==> lots of gravity ==> strong internal pushing ==> fusion of protons ==> destruction of matter ==> energy
"blow up trillions of tons of mass each second - means, not a solid core. big_smile (uh, ya! duh!! lol)"
Exactly -- it is just SO hot inside the Sun that solid matter just can't exist. The coolest form of matter is called a "solid", then "liquid", the warmer forms of matter are "gasses" and even hotter still is "plasma" (this is where the matter is so hot that the electrons fly off the nucleus), and even hotter is when matter becomes energy.
"So, in other words, the sun could be what is known as a supernova (an exploding star/planet, right?) and as soon as the explosion comes to an end, so does life on earth? "
A supernova is how a star dies. As more and more mass is turned into energy, the mass of the star gets reduced. As the mass is reduced, the force of gravity decreases. If conditions are just right, the fusion will over power the gravity, the star will expand. Then eventually, less energy is produced by fusion and then the star rapidly collapses on itself. And then, through the horrendous collapse hard-to-explain physics takes place and the star eventually just explodes from even-more-powerful-than-fusion energy creation.
Basically the star expands because fusion>gravity ==> then gravity>fusion ==> then crazy phsyics on the quantum scale creates even stronger energy that blows it up.
"I felt better believing in creation"
Once again, despite what Pcunix says, phsyics CAN'T disprove Gods.
Gods are, by definition, unprovable. They can not be proven false, they can not be proven true.
BUT!! If you believe in a god, then you could just as easily believe in a flying invisible mass of elephants that is undetectable at all... it's unprovable, but it COULD be true.
Basically science forces people to say: "Does my belief in ONE SINGLE unprovable being outweigh my belief in EVERY OTHER POSSIBLE unprovable being that COULD exist". Most people generally say "no".
"So, if all this is true, what is the purpose of life? It can't be survival - because it sounds like there's no chance of survival....."
What's the purpose of life?
I dunno... I had a pretty good sandwich today that was worth being alive to enjoy!
I sure as hell love the fact that I can get such a happy feeling by watching cute rabbits and petting my dogs!
I love loving my fiance!
Sure, we're all going to die, and I didn't NEED to be born... but... I feel it was worth it!
this is sensible.
Today, all I could think about was infinity. Infinity is incomprehensible to man, but that doesn't mean there isn't a God out there who does comprehend infinity, or who encompasses infinity.
God is all knowing, he knows exactly how earth and the universe was created. Man uses a teeny tiny portion of his brain yet has discovered much about the universe and life around him. I think it's amazing!!
Infinity, I think, must mean being capable of using the entire brain to fully comprehend the existence of life.
This has been very very enjoyable! I have such a different understanding of things (in such a short amount of time - thanks to you guys!!) than I did a few days ago. I hope my brain retains the info, lol, and I hope to put it to use someday. Even if only within a story.
If you've been following my argument with Pcunix, you'll find that I'm an atheist/secularist, but I understand that by definition it is impossible to prove that god exists or does not exist.
It's simply impossible.
If anyone ever claims they've proven God exists, they're lying.
If anyone ever claims they've proven God DOESN'T exist, they're lying.
--- I'm an atheist/secularist, however, in that I point out that, "sure, we could believe there's a god... but we could, with equal validity, believe that there's a giant meatball controlling the universe".
And to blow your mind even further...
think about the following equations:
infinity + infinity = ?
infinity x infinity = ?
infinity ^ infinity = ?
Feel free to believe in God. Just understand that any God has created the universe, and we're discovering the rules that S/He put in place.
we're discovering the rules that S/He (God) put in place.
As for infinity, I seriously think people misunderstand it. Infinity means having no end or limit. All things are possible.
Look what man has accomplished by believing all things are possible! And, this began with a belief in God which is where the saying originated! (Matthew 19:16 - not meant to be preachy, just citing reference. lol)
In terms of space and time - perhaps there is an end but man just hasn't found it yet, and most likely never will until the end of the world.
I'm afraid that science didn't really begin with a belief in god.
Looking throughout history, many of the greatest scientific thinkers were actually Atheists (or at least secularists).
All that I'm saying is that God COULD exist, but so could a magical spaghetti monster.
I must have confused myself -
All things are possible.
In God, all things are possible.
This is what I meant by saying it began with God.
If you wish to believe that the Universe was created by God...
.. that's totally fine.
You just need to realize that such a claim is 100% UNprovable, but that it is also 100% UN-Disprovable.
Basically, I could say with equal confidence as you, that "the universe was created by a Magical Farting Burrito, and that we all live inside of one of its Mystical Pinto Beans."
The two statements (God, and the Farting Burrito) have EXACTLY the same proof behind them: none.
Believe what you wish, I'm not trying to discourage you -- I'm merely showing you why Atheists are not the "evil demon spawning hate-mongers" that some Religious types think we are.
Religious people: "I have faith in God! I need no proof!"
Atheists: "There is no God. There's no proof He exists!"
Secularists: "No one can prove god exists or doesn't exist. There's no proof either way! Shut up already!"
Secularists: "No one can prove god exists or doesn't exist. There's no proof either way! Shut up already!"
I guess that's where I fall, but I do have faith in God, too.
You must realize, the 100% UNprovable and 100% UN-Disprovable also relates to spontaneous existence, right?
It just seems crazy to me to believe that a logical sequence of events happened spontaneously to create life today as we know it.
"It just seems crazy to me to believe that a logical sequence of events happened spontaneously to create life today as we know it."
Once again, this is totally fine to argue. Many professional scientists hold this belief.
"I guess that's where I fall, but I do have faith in God, too."
Once again, not a bad argument. Many secularists have faith in a god, they just know they can't prove it either way.
"You must realize, the 100% UNprovable and 100% UN-Disprovable also relates to spontaneous existence, right?"
Well, there are numerous arguments about this: If people accept a god that has existed forever... why can't they fathom a universe that has existed forever?
Also, life isn't necessarily anything special - the current abiogenesis theories (theories about how life could be created without previous life) are pretty plausible and have yet to be disproved.
Not at all. What is crazy is believing a man in the sky waved his hand and created life today as we know it.
Rafini, the sun does not "burn" in the accepted sense. There is no fire, there is no oxygen, there is no organic material to consume. It is not a chemical reaction as fire is.
Instead the sun "burns" by combining hydrogen atoms to other hydrogen atoms to create helium in a nuclear fusion reaction. This gives a very distinctive energy trace that we can measure, along with huge amounts of heat, which produce the light we see just as a light bulb heats a filament to produce light.
And yes, we understand hydrogen fusion; we've made and detonated bombs that work the same way.
oh, right! I remember hearing about the sun being...nuclear based? like a nuclear power plant, right? I mean, it's the same kind of energy. I honestly don't understand, though, how anyone can claim to know that is absolutely true.
Thanks wilderness, for clearing that up!
I still wonder though....and really wish I'd taken chemistry & physics in high school! Maybe, just maybe I'll take them now....
Yes, similar to a power plant, although a power plant operates by splitting atoms into 2 different atoms instead of combining them. We don't know yet how to do the fusion thing except in large, uncontrolled massive bursts of energy.
And yes, we can know that fusion in the sun is true. It releases a very distinctive type of energy that we can detect and identify with that type of nuclear reaction. We also know from spectrographic measurements that the sun is nearly pure hydrogen and helium, which fits into the idea.
Later in the sun's life the helium will begin to fuse into other elements which in turn fuse into others until nearly everything is iron, whereupon the "fire" goes out one way or another. It may turn to a red giant, it may go to a nova or supernova, or others. It mostly depends on the size of the star at that point. Betelgeuse, for instance, is expected to become a supernova in the near (to a star) future and eventually become a neutron star or black hole, while Sol will expand to a red giant and eventually simply gutter out.
okay, silly question - how did you learn all this? chemistry? physics? not really sure I want to go that far for studying but ya never know!
College classes, or even some high school classes, in both chemistry and physics will have some of this type of information. But perhaps the best source, without going into the actual physics of nuclear fusion, would probably be found in Astronomy classes. I never took that one, but would think the star life cycles would be taught.
My own background is in chemistry and physics - I'm not sure where I picked up information about cosmology. Probably an entry level physics class. Or maybe since my college days, as I'm an avid reader and interested in that kind of thing.
Yes. Here's just one example: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66E0H720100715
Stars that exploded thousands or millions or even billions of years ago are visible to us when the light gets here. I assume you understand how a light year works (its the distance light can travel in a year), so, if a star that is ten light years away from us explodes right now, we won't know it for ten years.
Well, given how many stars there are, there are actually stars exploding frequently. We have developed telescopes that can see pretty well now, so we are watching starts blow up when we can. Any star we see blow up is long dead back in its home galaxy, but the light show is just getting over to us. So, yes, we have seen it.
Exploding stars are the origin of all the elements that make up the planets and everything on them. Including you and me.
Because the sun is not a fire per say, it is a continual nuclear explosion. This continues untill heavier and heavier elements are formed, until eventually the sheer mass causes the sun to implode under it's own weight. That pretty much sums it up I think.
There is pleanty of observation on both the formation and eventual death of stars, several endings of stars have been caught by the hublle telescope. There is plenty of info out there on this subject, a lot more than I can give you from my vague rememberances!
That's an excellent explanation! Thanks oli.
Now you have me curious about the 'heavier and heavier elements' that would be formed. lol
I asked my son where hydrogen comes from, but he didn't have an answer. I'm wondering how the sun came to have hydrogen if it doesn't have a solid core.
If this is an example of what passes for science education today, we are in big, big trouble.
I fervently hope that you were actually taught better than this and simply were unable to understand it at the time.
We see many stars and sun exploding in the galaxies once in while. You can see the images of supernova (it occurs when star or sun ends it's lifecycle). You can read more about it in wikipedia.
Because the sun is not fire it is something similar to nuclear combustion are atomic it burns off of atomic chain reaction.
When a celestial body such as a star explodes, there is enough radiation spewed out into space to indicate such a colassal event.
No, not necessarily. But the moon was never a star
By the way, the Wikipedia entry does a good job covering the possible end stages of a star:
I thought the moon was a big ball of cheese... well, my mother said it was, so it must be true !!
my mother tried that too - until I asked her if the astronauts were bringing back enough for everyone!
Off subject a little but, if you could convince others that the moon was originally a sun it would indicate that they were correct when they believed that the sun revolved around earth.
Well, Rafini, this is what it says in Wikipedia:
The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the nearly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon. Giant impacts are thought to have been common in the early Solar System. Computer simulations modelling a giant impact are consistent with measurements of the angular momentum of the Earth–Moon system, and the small size of the lunar core; they also show that most of the Moon came from the impactor, not from the proto-Earth. However, meteorites show that other inner Solar System bodies such as Mars and Vesta have very different oxygen and tungsten isotopic compositions to the Earth, while the Earth and Moon have near-identical isotopic compositions. Post-impact mixing of the vaporized material between the forming Earth and Moon could have equalized their isotopic compositions, although this is debated.
thanks camlo -
just a silly question, but, if a Mars-sized body hit the earth as it was forming (or just after it was formed) wouldn't their be residue left on earth to prove such a thing happened? I would think so - has it been found, and determined to be true? or, probably not, since it's a hypothesis....
second piece of silliness - post impact mixing - this sounds deliberate, not the result of a chance occurrence....
Sounds to me like science doesn't really want to disprove the existence of God....
Yes, I wondered about these things, too. And I've always wondered about your third point.
The only reason it sounds silly is because it overcomes your understanding, trying to extend this lack of understanding into a theory that scientists do not want to disprove god is the silly bit. If you actually wanted to explore that idea you would be better to go back in time to when most people were religious by default, or were not able to voice their true opinions (and the truths they discovered) in the face of being burnt or gutted as a heretic.
One convincing theory was that the forming world was hit by another body and the resulting spin and centrugal forces separated the lighter and heavier materials which is why the earth has an iron core and the moon apparently does not. This is thought to be how most moon / planet systems formed.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that first bit - I understand that science began searching for the origins of life and the universe to prove God didn't exist, but it seems to me that the more science digs the closer it gets to proving God does exist!
Sorry, but that has no truth in it at all.
There is no evidence whatsoever that points to any supernatural being, and plenty that suggests and indeed demands the opposite conclusion,
I personally doubt science will ever get close enough. I think the world will end first - but science is digging deeper and deeper all the time, and many discoveries follow whats in the Bible.
pangaea is one example, and the proof that the red sea could have been parted (as stated in the Bible) is another.
Dear me. From some one who thinks the sun burns because of the oxygen on it - excuse me if I ask you exactly what "science" has dug up that gives you this silly idea?
I am also keen to know why you felt the need to inject your irrational belief in an Invisible Super Being into a science thread?
lol You are so funny! I don't believe I said anything about oxygen being ON the sun - but I did (temporarily) forget that oxygen levels get thinner as one moves further from the earths surface. So silly of me! Please shoot me for making a mistake!!
(In case you didn't notice, I placed this thread under Education & Science because I didn't intend to only discuss Science!)
That is very debatable, depending upon where you place the origin of science, most scholars set out to prove the existence of a creator and determine the laws behind the universe.
In my experience, the vast majority of scientists could not give a crap about whether god exists or not - they merely continue with their research and try to find answers. 'Science' isn't a group of people who have exactly the same thoughts, goals, and methods - it is far more complex than that
perhaps things have changed a bit since I was a young child? lol
what I remember learning is that science began as a way to disprove God. doesn't mean what I learned is true, just that I could hold a false understanding.
You probably "learned" that from some religious preacher; you certainly did not learn it from a scientist.
Maybe that is why there is so much friction between science and religion where there should be none! The Ancient Greeks, Islamic scholars and many of the great minds of the Renaissance saw scientific research as a way to see the mind of god.
For my dissertation, I studied the omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid ratios in barnacles. I can safely say that theological concerns contributed absolutely nothing to the research process! I am pretty sure that the same applies to the vast majority of modern scientists.
It wasn't "THE" sun, but it was once a star.
All matter was once a star.
Stars work by taking protons and then crushing them through gravity into the larger elements of periodic table.
Only certain stars can make the larger-nuclei elements, but pretty much every single atom that has more than one proton was once a star.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUAhh1wIUpQ <-- this video explains how energy is released, and how helium is created in stars.
(This video doesn't discuss the death of stars... here's a link to the death of stars: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4l6jqKL5Qo <--- this discusses how heavy elements are created and shot out into space)
Your "son" is right, but he just needs to replace the word "sun" with "star", and he, too, will be a star.
The current theory of the moon, however, is that it was once part of the Earth. Of course, the Earth's mass was once part of a star at some point in the billions of years of the Universe's existence. The theory goes that some asteroid hit the Earth and blew a huge chunk of it off, and it turned into the moon.
One piece of evidence for this is that the moon's rotation almost matches perfectly with its revolution around the Earth -- this is why you only ever see one side of the moon; the same part of the moon is always facing the Earth. No matter which time of the year you look up at the moon, it's always the same side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO45ZiGql8E <--- origin of the moon. Fantastic video --- but watch out, there are many SIMILAR hypotheses of the moon's origin. They all are VERY similar, but this is ONE of them.
That's an interesting theory, but one I can't put into acceptance. It just doesn't make sense - take a pool table for example. (not exactly accurate for the purpose, but as close as I can get)
Say two pool balls (right next to each other) are struck at the same time - they roll in different directions rather than one circling the other for a time.
Maybe an example with a bullet would be better - if a bullet were to hit a solid object (one that would splinter off after being hit by the bullet) that splintered piece would fly off in a geometrical direction but wouldn't circle its place of origin.
As for the rotation of the moon and earth - I don't believe the rotation would remain the same for a chunk that was blown off. (all I can think of is the pool example again.
The moon origin video was great! But, it doesn't make sense. The lava fields must be what 'evolved' into land mass. Thea died and the earth survived - without leaving a trace of impact on either side? If their were proof of impact, I might be persuaded to believe this theory.
Tie your two pool balls together with a rope while still letting them roll freely somehow. The rope represents gravity. Now they will either circle each other or bang back together, just as the moon circles the earth. If the angle of impact is right the circling occurs. (you have to realize that this is only an approximate simulation; gravity does not act as a rope does, providing no attraction until suddenly coming tight and providing ultimate attraction). Friction with the pool table will eventually stop such circling, but there is no friction in space; they will go on forever.
Interestingly, the moon is not in a stable orbit; it is gradually drawing away by a few inches per year. Eventually it will leave the orbit completely and move off into space, becoming a planet itself circling the sun instead of the earth. In times far past the moon would have filled half the sky, making tides hundreds of feet high on earth.
Computer simulations show that if the large asteroid hit the earth at the right angle, some material would stay on earth while the rest bounces off. Gravity will still pull on it, forcing it into an orbit. In addition all the debris thrown up will also circle and eventually be drawn to either the earth or moon to impact there and become a part of that body. The energies released by such a large impact are almost beyond comprehension; it is enough to nearly melt both earth and asteroid into balls of near-liquid rock.
That the moon is "one sided" (one side faces the earth at all times) is also a result of gravity, though a little more complex, as it has to do with tides. It is called being tidally locked.
This is interesting! I seem to remember hearing of the rope/gravity example before.
And there I thought I was being original! Oh well, what little I have learned in this life is old hat now, I guess - it's all been covered a thousand times before.
How could you argue it doesn't make sense? IT has over 1 millennia's worth of scientific argument supporting it.
To "refute" these arguments is to say that you disagree that objects fall towards the earth.
Your argument ignores the fact that a pool ball was created to not be destroyed. This is NOT the way that the planets were formed. Planets were simply junk in space that got pulled together via gravity. Basically, they CAN explode if hit hard enough.
Also, methinks you fail to understand HOW much energy two planets crashing into one another would release.
Earth's mass = 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grams
Earth's speed = 30,000 / second
KE = 0.5 MxV^2.
Translation - the amount of energy of two earth planets hitting each other would be : 7,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
The hiroshima bomb released 64,000,000,000,000 joules.
Translation - if the Earth hit another planet, it would be the same thing as blowing up hiroshima about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times.
One more time:
Having two planets earth's size hit each other full force would be the equivalent of blowing up an atomic bomb 1 million million million million times.
1 million million million million hiroshima bombs
that's just a BIT more energy than your bullets and pool balls.
... just a bit.
To put your "billiard balls" example into perspective.
Imagine if you had two billiard balls moving to one another NOT at 100 miles per hour, but at 100 miles per SECOND.
They'd be obliterated.
And then the debris would be traveling at a similar speed to the planets that collided, and eventually it would be picked up via gravity into the moon.
To once again answer your original question: NO the moon was never the sun.
But it was once a star.
Well, yeah, but it's not like anyone would notice..
You give a good explanation, but it's difficult to understand with all the BS interwoven in your attitude.
Makes me wonder if you really know what you're talking about - can I trust the explanation coming out between the spurts of BS?
If the Earth was hit by a mars sized body (I don't really know the facts I'm afraid) then there would be plenty of debris left around because of it. However since we have evolved on this planet with all this debris already apparent, it just appears as normal to us.
I'd agree, except for one thing: Man has been on the moon and has brought back samples. The debris must have been analyzed, and from what I remember (I think, lol) the moon and earth share some composition. Such as the moon has 75% of the same organic matter as earth but has nothing out of the ordinary. (not exactly accurate - its been a long time since I heard this!!)
The debris would have to be located in a specific area, I'd think, with the specific area being the point of impact. On both the surface of the moon and on earths surface. (at least a majority of debris, some, I'd understand, could theoretically 'land' on other parts of the planet) I'd also think there would be physical proof of impact, such as an indent or a chunk being gone rather than both planets retaining a spherical shape.
I would stop talking if I were you. You think we bought back organic matter from the moon?
Stick with "Goddunit."
lol okay, not organic matter? just matter? not a prob.
(somewhere I heard everything was organic matter..not just everything on earth)
(pounding my head on the desk over and over again in complete frustration)
Organic = life.
There's no life on the moon
Thus there's no organic matter.
Didn't you all learn about the composition of hte sun and earth and all that simple stuff when you were kids in school ? I seem to remember discussing these things around age 12 - along with the emerging new concepts of time, and the new pop music that we could only get on radio luxembourg as it was devils's music.
(do you know how long its been since we were 12??)
I would like to take this time to remind everyone that putting a child through school in the US costs $13k/year (for each student).
“just a silly question, but, if a Mars-sized body hit the earth as it was forming (or just after it was formed) wouldn't their be residue left on earth to prove such a thing happened? I would think so - has it been found, and determined to be true? or, probably not, since it's a hypothesis....”
You have to imagine our planet, not as you see it now but as high speed spinning molten mass, so anything hitting it would be absorbed into that mass unless the object was almost the same size as the young earth, then two things are possible. Both shatter and the whole building process starts all over again and we think this probably happened hundreds of times.
The other thing is there is a huge collision where one of the objects is completely destroyed and partially absorbed however there is enough orbiting debris to forma moon. We are reasonably sure this is what happened the proof of the collision is the 23 degree tilt in the Earths rotation.
second piece of silliness - post impact mixing - this sounds deliberate, not the result of a chance occurrence....
There was and is enough floating debris in outer space to make this pure chance and with extremely large asteroids out there it can and undoubtedly will occur again.
Sounds to me like science doesn't really want to disprove the existence of God....
Whoever said science was trying to disprove God, I know there are some people on Hubpages believe such a ridiculous theory but that is only a tiny minority. The problem is that as we discover more and more information about the origins of Life and the Universe it makes the need and existence of God more unlikely.
However, in my humble opinion, and for what it’s worth, Ignorance is not a sufficient excuse to ignore scientific discovery just so a belief in a supreme being may be maintained.
Wouldn't the molten mass have absorbed the debris and kept it here, on earth, where it could be found, and prove the theory? And, if that were true, wouldn't the moon, then, have traces of volcanic lava somewhere on its surface? If these things were found, I may accept the theory of a 'big bang' chance occurrance of human existence. But for now, nope.
The 23 degree tilt of earth does not prove the 23 degree tilt of earth was caused by a cosmic collision which resulted in the earth having a moon!
Thank you for pointing out the next obvious problem - if a chance occurance brought earth toward today, why hasn't there been another in the 50 billion years of existence? How has earth managed to avoid another catastrophe? This one really doesn't make sense to me - if it happened once, it most surely could happen again, but hasn't in 50 billion years?? really? I'm supposed to believe that? Maybe I could, if I'd never heard of one man who has survived being struck by lightning a total of four times. (lightning never strikes the same place twice - um, yeah, right!)
Ignorance is not a sufficient excuse to ignore scientific discovery just so a belief in a supreme being may be maintained.
this is funny - ignorance isn't a simple case of ignoring truth. ignorance is a lack of knowledge.
Now I ask you, who would you believe has more knowledge of earth? A God who created earth, or modern scientists who are trying to disprove a God's existence?
It is plain there is no point in trying to reason with you.
Really - you should stick to the politics and religious forums.
Hey, I don't mind discussing theories but I do have a problem with someone trying to convince me that those theories are not only plausible but are factual. Theories are theories, nothing more. Until proven.
No, that's not entirely accurate. That's a typical argument of Creationists, for example, pretending that their ridiculous theory is equivalent to scientific theories.
lol The Bible is not a theory, it's solid matter.
Don't you understand the Bible also must be proven in order to be accepted as fact? It's not a theory, because really, its recorded history. However, just because its recorded history doesn't prove the existence of God or that God created earth & the universe. I believe in God, therefore, I'd prefer to prove God's existence. However, if it could be proven that God doesn't exist, I'd have to accept it now wouldn't I?
Problem is, I don't believe its been proven, either way.
"Don't you understand the Bible also must be proven in order to be accepted as fact?"
No it doesn't. It needs only have someone believe it for it to be totally accepted as factual. That's what makes religion - the acceptance of stories as fact based only upon the desire to believe.
sorry, I didn't make myself clear.
(I believe) The Bible must be scientifically proven in order to be accepted as fact.
I'm not talking about faith based acceptance. I'm talking about acceptance as in the Bible being correct without scientific terms. Perhaps only for me, but I wouldn't be surprised if others were interested.
Rafini, part of the problem is that you don't have the knowledge base to understand the answers - you don't speak the same language. For instance, a quadrillion small particles coming together to form earth will create a ball rotating in the same plane as it's orbit around the sun - not 23 degrees off that plane. Yet I can't explain that to you because you don't have the physics and math background to understand any actual explanation. The best anyone can do is give you facts which you then claim can't be proved because you can't understand that proof.
As mankind's knowledge base expands so rapidly one of the problems we find is that no one can know or understand everything. Much of what we know must be taken on the word of some one who can understand and work with the language of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. If you demand that proof be given that you can understand without having the knowledge base then you will never learn very much beyond what you now know.
There is just so much we are learning that flies in the face of "common knowledge" that it is incredible. I can accept that 2 hydrogen atoms fuse in the sun for no reason I can see, but I don't truly understand why or how - I can't understand the math involved in the explanation and will never devote the years and years of study necessary to be able to prove it even to myself. This in spite of the fact that I left college just 1 credit hour short of a math degree and 3 hours short of a physics degree. I still can't understand it.
I think you're right. I understand what you've said, except for the rotation and 23 degrees off the plane.
The conclusions I'm coming to agree with what you've stated - what is known must be taken on the word of someone who actually understands and works with it.
This has been very good for me - I don't think I want to devote my life to these understandings. At one time I thought yes. But, still, sometimes I'm going to question the information given by the experts because sometimes the experts can be wrong.
Nothing wrong with that line of thought, Rafini.
As part of my work, I often use a variation of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector to test the strength of any research:
You know, I think we should always question the experts! Their data, their education, and perhaps especially their motives. If they stand to make money from it (govt. grants perhaps?) or just notoriety then the conclusions are very suspect. What we shouldn't do much is question it based on "common sense".
At the same time, after they have submitted their findings or conclusions for peer review from others that can understand the work, and the peers agree, it becomes much more reliable in my mind. There are exceptions (man made global warming comes to mind, as does Piltdown Man) but I think they are fairly rare.
Rafini - i know that this will be completely lost on you, but your argument of "what a theory is" is COMPLETELY wrong.
A theory is not a theory until people prove it CORRECT...
a theory is a theory until someone proves it WRONG.
Then it is a "disproven theory".
All "theories" you hear about in science are hypotheses that have yet to be proven wrong.
the THEORY of atoms
the THEORY of thermodynamics
the THEORY of gravity
the THEORY of relativity
the THEORY of antimatter
the THEORY of evolution
the THEORY of matter
the THEORY of energy
the THEORY of forces
the THEORY of magnetism
the THEORY of electricity
the THEORY of light
the THEORY of electromagnetic radiation
the THEORY of quantum mechanics
ALL OF THESE HAVE YET TO BE PROVEN WRONG, thus they are theories, and not hypotheses
a theory is a theory until someone proves it WRONG.
You are so right! I don't know why I keep forgetting this. lol It probably has something to do with my wanting to prove things as true. (as in a prosecutor proving the defendant guilty)
lol Probably another reason why I can leave science behind.
This is actually a very good point you bring up with respect to the collision. In space cascading from meteor showers should increase exponentially, therefore increasing the risk of another collision with Earth.
Don't forget that the earth is a very small speck in the system nor that other plants (and the sun!) are enormously greater in size and gravitational pull thus collecting most system debris. Nor that the large majority of large objects such as our moon are in relatively stable orbits around something else - a panet or sun. Nor that we are hit many many times each day with smaller objects.
Jupiter was hit with a "dinosaur killer" a short time ago - although it is much larger we could be next on the list. Eventually we will be hit unless we can learn to deflect such a thing. It is a matter of probabilities. Low probability we get it this year, higher for Jupiter or Saturn, much higher for the sun. Very near 100% probability we get it withing the next billion years even though the system is slowly clearing itself of debris this very way.
To paraphrase "Hawking," we face a far greater threat from our fellow man than we do from something from the cosmos.
Amen to that!
Yep. In the long run a meteor or another planet or the sun going out will destroy earth. In the long run. In the short run far more likely that man will make uninhabitable.
Or, like the dinosaur extinction impact, only some life forms will survive to populate the earth until the final cataclysm, whether it be by a completely destructive impact or our sun's demise.
It's actually more probable than you think, except the impact possibility doesn't rate too high on the Torino scale. Additionally, it only accounts for the next 100 years, which is a drop in the bucket.
yeah, we get hit trillions of times per day from junk in space.
It's just that the junk is so small it gets nuked in the atmosphere before it hits anything.
Most scientist (and as stated before even wikipedia ) agree with Alan Boss who wrote an article about the origin of the moon in the Science Mag Issue of January 24 1986 (Vol. 231 no. 4736 pp. 341-345):
"The origin of the moon is considered within the theory of formation of the terrestrial planets by accumulation of planetesimals. The theory predicts the occurrence of giant impacts, suggesting that the moon formed after a roughly Mars-sized body impacted on the protoearth. The impact blasted portions of the protoearth and the impacting body into geocentric orbit, forming a prelunar disk from which the moon later accreted. Although other mechanisms for formation of the moon appear to be dynamically impossible or implausible, fundamental questions must be answered before a giant impact origin can be considered both possible and probable."
But it's also true that 95% of the stars in the universe end up being a white dwarf (and not essentially take the 5% path that leads to a supernova and then to a neutron star or a black hole [in simple terms ]), they could theoretically cool down to a black dwarf but the mass of this would exceed the mass of the moon by far AND the Universe is too young that a black dwarf could have formed until now [at least that's what we think] (no one has ever observed black dwarf either and the time it would take for such a hot sun to cool down to a black dwarf is enormously, even in a fairly cold place like the Universe !).
I knew a cool black dwarf once - so that blows another godless theory out of the water - ha!
Hahaha xD godless theory - good one But you really wouldn't believe how much I get to hear this everyday by people who actually mean it . But I respect religion, as long as religious people respect science
Until then - the moon might as well be the reason women get their period (no kidding several cultures including the Japanese, Indians and Greeks made the moon responsible for that )
With some reason I would say, with women cycling in time with the moon along with many other living organisms - especially those that have some relationship with the sea and tidal movements, also weather patterns tend to react to lunar cycles locally and sun cycles overall.
This was actually the idea behind The Pachacamac Temple of the Moon in Lima, Peru. The women were kept there based on fertility cycle, with exactly the number of rooms to correlate with one month of their calender. It was guarded by castrated guards with burned faces to prevent temptation. The chosen men to breed stayed at the Temple of the Sun up the Road. The temple of the sun is at the top of a hill (convex symbolizing male genitalia) and the temple of the moon was dug below (concave symbolizing women genitalia).
fundamental questions must be answered before a giant impact origin can be considered both possible and probable.
I can agree 100% to this.
I doubt that you fully comprehend what you are agreeing with.
Rafini, the sentence that you "Agreed" to is, restated:
"science exists, and the theory has yet to be disproven. Thus it's a very good theory, but we should still try to disprove it".
Translation: "It IS a theory. It IS respectable".
okay...I don't see the same thing in your translation....
what I see is this:
There are certain essential questions, regarding the origin of the universe, that must be answered before the giant impact theory can be understood as a possibility or a plausibility.
And, aren't all theory's respectable? At least, unless they are presented as hogwash.
No, all theories are NOT respectable. Some don't even deserve to be called theories - like Creationism.
I'm waiting for the punchline. You are either joking with us or you are about to announce some Goddunnit nonsense.
oh, good! So glad you agree! Creationism isn't a theory, it's a fact!
I think it's safe to understand that those who believe in Creation wish to disprove the big bang theory while those who believe in spontaneous existence wish to disprove any form of a God.
Me? I'd like to say I'd be happy either way just as long as a decision is finally made. But, to be honest, I'd prefer to prove that God does, indeed, exist.
What makes you think science is out to disprove god? What would the motive be for scientists to disprove creation, Rafini?
THIS is the punchline.
I knew it would get to this eventually.
if ya push hard enough you can make the world spin
Whatever you say. Mountains will move if you pray, they say. No mountains actually HAVE been moved, but we can disregard little things like that.
You obviously need to believe. That's fine with me - there are many truly lovely people who have the same defect and I would hate to lose them from this world because they are so wonderful. My attitude toward the religious is to hope and assume that you are one of the lovely ones until you show me differently.
But I would suggest you stay out of these specific forums. People WILL endeavor to dissuade you and that could make you bitter if they succeed.
lol big bangers have been attempting to dissuade me all my life - what makes you think someone in this forum will succeed if nobody I've met in person has been able to?
(btw - I've moved a mountain! I'm no longer depressed. )
No, but i do think there is still a lot more we have to discover about the moon...
Very interesting replies everyone, i have enjoyed reading this thread
I'm so disappointed.
I thought it was pure mimolette cheese and the main question would be whether it is a Dutch cheese or a French cheese.
Well Rafini, I think that it would be more important to have cheese making lessons. In a way it's chemistry.
And if it ever burns, it will be inside a stomach.
Rafini, are you just trolling or what. Nobody could have such little knowledge of the world they inhabit.
The moon and earth were barely collections of rock debris when the collision and spin off occurred. There was no life or organic material as you call it to get deposited on the moon from the earth. These weren't billard balls hitting each other.
is molten lava not considered organic material? if there'd been a collision, wouldn't there be lava deposits on the moon?
sorry, but you obviously know nothing about me and I don't have the time to explain.
But, my level of knowledge tells me that perhaps my interest in science would be better off served through following the information rather than attempting to immerse myself. Thanks for the blow to the head.
organic = life.
Lava = dead
so... please read your 5th grade science textbook again.
That was rude, but, seriously, your questions should've been answered in grade school.
Here's a fantastic set of videos that will catch you up.
Just spend 1 hour a day watching these:
You'll be a pro in no time.
but, seriously, wasn't lava some type of living matter prior to becoming lava?
from what I remember, everything has life. even lava. rocks are alive. so is water.
now, if there had been a collision, wouldn't there be evidence of lava on the moon??
Completely beyond possibility that anyone could say this with a straight face.
You are yanking our chains, right? You are doing a parody of a completely ignorant religious person , perhaps?
You CANNOT be serious.
oh, did I goof somewhere?
sorry, but the main question from the collision theory hasn't been answered yet! so, I thought I should ask again. maybe it's been answered and I just haven't seen it?
Lava isn't alive. Plastics aren't alive. Metals aren't alive. Rocks aren't alive.
the VAST majority of matter in the world is not alive.
99.999999% of the matter in the universe isn't alive.
There is only a small fraction of atoms that are arranged in a manner that self-replicate.
We call this life.
For more information (no offense, but it is likely over your head), check out the theories of "abiogenesis" (a=without, bio=life, genesis=creation ---"the creation of life without life")
Once again, I'm only typing this to help you understand current scientific thinking. I'm actually trying to educate you a bit.
gotcha. maybe it was a classmate's theory of everything being alive? lol I can't remember that long ago!! lol But it seems to me the idea came about the same time as we were learning about evolution, and learning about trees needing to breathe (intake carbon dioxide -?- or monoxide -?- and release oxygen) and drink water and so on. The Life of a Rock. Sounds like a geology thing to me. Who knows?
If it isn't true, I can accept it. I always thought it was strange to think of rocks as being alive. lol
Stars ==> rocks ==> nutrients ==> life ==> death ==> life.
Lava was never alive (organic GENERALLY means "life-having", it TECHNICALLY means hydro-carbons. Lava is neither).
Lava is just "rock that is so hot it's a liquid". For example, when you heat up ice, it turns into water, and eventually vapor. When you heat up metals, they eventually turn to liquid that you can pour into a mold.
When you heat up rocks, you get lava.
Lava is heated by radioactive atoms inside the Earth --- that and the crushing gravity.
The moon doesn't have the crushing gravity, nor enough radioactive elements to heat the rocks to the point of liquid.
"evidence of lava" COULD mean "a rock exists". Thus, there IS evidence of lava: there are rocks on the moon. But this isn't really a good argument.
ok, gotcha! silly question, though. say I picked up a rock off the ground and managed to heat it to the point of it becoming liquid form. does that mean I'd have lava?
my question about evidence of lava - meaning, residue from a Thea collision with Earth. If Thea collided with Earth and formed the moon, then theoretically, Thea became the moon, right? Or, a chunk of Earth became the moon, right? I believe the discussion stated Thea was destroyed and particles from the explosion (collision?) of the planets is what formed the moon. Okay.
Thea exploded and then gravitated back together. Got it. Strangest thing I've ever heard of, but, okay. Still, wouldn't there be lava residue somewhere out there? If not on/in the moon, then floating around in space? Because, think about it. When you drop a rock in water, the water splashes. I'd imagine the same would happen with lava on the surface of the earth when another planet collided with it.
Lava turns back into rock when it cools. The rocks brought from the moon were identified as once being part of the earth.
Yes, there are remains of the collision everywhere on the moon and the earth. There are also patches of ice on the moon, in the dark places and on the other side of the moon.
Seriously?? OMG - lol - now you've crushed my beliefs! You weren't supposed to do that! lol
um, you're not just saying that, are you? (I think I've heard of ice on the moon before)
Completely serious. We may one day be able to make use of this ice if a lunar base is eventually established.
There is ice on the moon.
I just looked up "moon rock" and found that many of the rocks were igneous rocks. Igneous rocks are rocks that were once lava.
I remembered this today -
Wasn't it thought that the craters on the moon were actually spent volcano craters?
It seems to me I remember hearing this at one time ~
no, the craters of the moon are from meteor impacts.
The moon doesn't have enough gravity to keep gasses close to it, so it has no atmosphere.
SO, when a meteor comes into the earth, it gets slowed down by the atmosphere, AND it gets destroyed by the atmosphere.
Going 300,000 mph in a vacuum is easy... but once you start hitting stuff, it gets HOT! The meteorites generally blow up before they hit the ground.
BUT! on the moon, no atmosphere exists, and any small meteor is able to just crash into the moon at full force.
"ok, gotcha! silly question, though. say I picked up a rock off the ground and managed to heat it to the point of it becoming liquid form. does that mean I'd have lava?"
Yeah, pretty much. It'd be a LOT of energy, though.
"Still, wouldn't there be lava residue somewhere out there?"
Yes, they are ROCKS. Remember that LAVA = hot rocks, and that space is VERY COLD. So, if you throw a 1 million degree rock into space, it will freeze in a matter of minutes.
Leftover lava = rocks. Remember? Cold lava = rocks, hot rocks = lava. Thus, if lava gets cold, it turns into rocks.
The moon is a big collection of rocks, and it's round because of gravity's attractive force.
hmm, but all rocks aren't from lava - they can't be, cuz they're all different colors and such. like, coal or diamonds (haha, oops, they're the same thing!) or limestone or marble. (or are we only talking about moonrocks and spacerocks?)
I don't understand how melting a rock into lava would create a LOT of energy. lava on it's own doesn't do much but cool down. isn't it the heating process that makes it volatile? lol - did I just answer my own question? so, heating a rock to the point of it becoming liquid form (lava) would cause it to become volatile? that's what makes a volcano erupt?
huh, I think that's cool. Do you know, has anyone ever attempted to heat up lavarock until it was liquid? I'm just wondering if it erupted. lol
Not all rock is igneous. Sedimentary rock is layers of sediment from the bottom or rivers or oceans. They accreted over many years. Limestone is the remains of certain corals and shellfish, also formed over many years.
All of these can become lava if heated enough by the pressure of the earth upon them. Lava is a byproduct of extreme pressure and heat, not a cause of energy itself.
igneous = from lava?
okay, I remember learning about sedimentary rock - but don't remember if I learned the rest of what you said.
from what I remember, there's always lava but it doesn't come to the surface until there's enough pressure for it to do so. (tetonic plate movement?)
all of you have given me a wonderful taste of what to expect should I decide to study chemistry & physics - it's fascinating stuff! I have no idea how you remember it all!! lol
No, the moon is not an extinguished star. Not in the sense that I expect you mean. There are many ways in which we know this, but I guess the most obvious is that the moon isn't big enough to ever have been. For an object to become a star it has to be far more massive than the moon. Interestingly, it doesn't actually matter what this object is made from; it could be made of bananas, but once it's big enough it'll create heat and light all the same as any star.
Although the moon is not the core of an extinct star, it is actually made almost entirely of elements made in stars. In fact all heavy elements are; including those which make up our bodies. Moby was right when he sang "we're all made of stars".
Yes, I was wondering if her son might have been confused by an explanation of all heavier elements originating in stellar fusion. If he's young, we could forgive that confusion.
I don't know about forgiving it in an adult, because I don't know who to blame. Is our educational process really so flawed? I see a lot of rank ignorance here in the forums, but of course there is no way to tell how and why these people apparently missed so much.
Do we blame them for intellectual laziness or do we blame the system that allowed them to pass through apparently oblivious to even the most basic understanding?
I don't know, but it worries me,
Thank you, Superwags.
You have given the best argument for the moon not being a burnt out sun. It isn't big enough. Not really sure I agree, but it makes sense.
Here's how a star works:
1) Enough matter gets close together that the force of gravity pulls it all together.
2) More and more matter begin to collect in the same area.
3) Even more matter comes together... there has to be a LOT of matter.
4) finally, SO much matter gets together that the force of gravity is SO strong that - just by gravity alone - protons begin to hit each other. *The force of gravity over powers the force of the two positively charged nuclei*.
5) Not only do the protons TOUCH, but the amount of gravity is SO powerful that they FUSE together (this is called fusion).
--- This was all explained in the videos i posted. ---
6) the process of fusion expels electromagnetic radiation into the universe.
7) as more and more protons fuse together, the star literally CREATES Helium, Lithium, Iron, Beryllium, Carbon, Oxygen, and every other element in existence.
8) creating these molecules DESTROYS MASS but CREATES ENERGY. (E= mc^2)
9) Eventually TOO much mass is destroyed, and the star explodes (it COULD collapse upon itself, however, if there was originally a heck of a lot of mass)
10) the heavier elements collapse to create stars and planets, etc.
--- all the matter around was once part of a star. Your foot used to be a burning pile of protons in the core of some Multi-trillion degree furnace of energy... but then that start exploded and died. And the matter has reformed itself to become your foot---
This is the so-far, yet-to-be-disproven theory-of-elemental-creation.
Wow, interesting!! More physics? D@mn!! I gotta get my memory function back so I can take the class!!
um, lol, my foot? not my whole being? that's just a bit too much to digest - I prefer the biological method of childbirth.
E= mc^2 <----- It seems I'd only seen this in conjunction with the words, 'Theory of Relativity', is that what this means, or something else? Energy equals mass (combustion times two?) Is that the theory of relativity? guess I've been misinformed, there. (not enough to confuse my future, but just enough to make me wrong. lol)
The "C" represents the speed of light.
so, Energy equals mass at the speed of light times two. (oops, actually, it'd be squared, wouldn't it?)
thanks Randy, nobody I've known has ever known what that meant. (never bothered to think to ask a teacher! lol)
seems kind of odd, though, when you consider calories turn to energy inside the human body. (or, whatever they do! lol I just know they're related somehow) Must be a different kind of energy? but, the equation doesn't specify a type of energy.
Yes, squared, Rafini. Energy is produced in many ways, including the body burning calories for energy.
one of the important uses of E=mc^2 is this:
When smaller atoms fuse together (usually hydrogen fusing with hydrogen), they lose mass. For example: two hydrogen weigh 2 AMU (really small measurement of mass), but when they fuse together 4 times they weigh LESS than 4 AMU.
The difference in mass is turned into energy. MASS IS POTENTIAL ENERGY.
The difference in mass, multiplied by the speed of light (300,000,000,000 m/s) times the speed of light again is about how much energy is released.
You can eat food because the sun is a horrendously disgusting powerhouse of dead matter. Hydrogen goes in... bigger elements and energy come out.
E= MC^2 literally means that "when you destroy 1 gram of mass, the amount of energy released is equal to about 9,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy.
The amount of energy released in the Hiroshima blast was 60,000,000,000,000 joules.
Which means that, when the bomb exploded, and completely leveled Hiroshima, it transformed ONLY 0.0000066667 grams of matter into energy. (that is, in theory: There was likely more mass involved because the event did not happen in a vacuum.)
This means that the average human, if converted into energy, would release enough energy to blow up the entire world (and then some).
Luckily, there isn't any efficient way to accomplish this goal...
But now, to put that into context of the SUN --- the Sun's gravity is so powerful that it destroys a bit more than 4 MILLION TONS OF MATTER EVERY SECOND!!!!!
okay, something has had to have changed since I've been out of school! lol
the average human, if converted to matter (last I heard/understood, everything, basically, was matter - kinda like what I said above, about everything being organic or having life, lol) would release enough energy to blow up the entire world??
Sorry to sound stupid, but I'm surprised I haven't heard Lex Luthor's plan to make this happen! lol
How is this understood to be accurate?
So, joules is a way to measure energy? A specific energy?
Re-read what I wrote:
The average human... IF CONVERTED INTO ****ENERGY**** can blow up the world.
There are multiple ways to measure energy. the important thing to remember is that ALL energy is the same, it just gets dissipated in different methods: heat, radiation, electromagnetic radiation, decrease in altitude, and others.
For example - in the star we're discussing: the GRAVITATIONAL FORCE is so great that it gives so much ENERGY to the protons that they FUSE together. Then this FUSING ENERGY creates electromagnetic radiation and heat.
calories, Calories, joules... here's a list i just found:
1 joule = .0009478 Btus
1 Btu = 1,055.05585 joules
1 kilojoule = 1,000 joules
1 kilojoule = .947817 Btus
1 Btu = 1.055 kilojoules
1 kilojoule = .239 kilocalories
1 kilocalorie (kcal) = 4.187 kilojourles (kJ)
1 watt hour = 3,600 joules
1 kilowatt hour = 3.6 megajoules
1 megajoule = 1 million joules
1 terajoule = 1 million megajoules
all energy is the same. got it.
so, only energy levels and how it's used are different?
isn't gravitational pull energy? how can that be the same as a food source converting to energy within the human body?
is it like saying, a food source is fused together in the stomach (with digestion being similar to what happens on the sun) to the point of implosion/explosion in order to send energy throughout the body?
indeed, all energy is "the same".
BUT -- the energy is STORED in different ways.
Salt. Salt is Sodium and Chlorine bonded together. Those bonds are a form of storing energy - when you break the bond, you release the energy.
Now, if we were able to put a strong enough force on a chunk of salt, we could fuse it into a larger element, and this fusion would release energy.
If we had Antimatter (we won't get into what antimatter IS, we'll just say that when antimatter and matter touch, both are 100% converted into energy), we could throw some antimatter on the salt and convert the mass into energy.
With salt, still, we could burn it (if we had enough energy), and form NaO2 and ClO - the combining of oxygen to these other atoms would create energy -- we would add energy, and then it would expel more energy than we put in.
All energy is the same, but it's STORED in different forms.
Chemical bonds are one form; nuclear bonds are another; matter is another.
Gravity -- in order for the FORCE of gravity (a force is a push or pull on something) to create ENERGY, you need to add a mass to it.
For example, when you climb a ladder, gain potential energy at the expense of kinetic energy.
Then when you jump off the roof, you turn your potential energy into kinetic energy.
KE = 1/2 ma^2
M = mass, A = acceleration (the FORCE of gravity provides an acceleration of about 9.8 meters per second per second: 9.8m/s/s)
Gravitational potential energy = 9.8 x m x h
m= mass, h = height. So, if you climb 5 meters, and you weigh 30,000 grams, and you fall... you'll hit the ground with an energy of
9.8 x 30,000 x 5 = 1,470,000 joules of energy.
(Be careful, a joule (j) and a Joule (J) are about 1000 times different... that is... if memory serves correctly...)
Antimatter = dangerous, or volatile. Good enough explanation for me!
I know absolutely nothing about chemistry.
wow - I think this is a bit much for me, lol, I've got such a headache from a 4 day crash course!
antimatter is actually not really chemistry, it's physics.
Hopefully you remember that matter is made up of Protons, neutrons and electrons.
Protons have a positive charge, electrons are negative, and neutrons are neutral.
This is true for matter.
However, antimatter is backward. When it touches matter it explodes horrifically.
a joule and a Joule are the same Their magnitude is expressed with the normal SI-prefixes
(nano, micro, milli, kilo ,mega, giga -Joule and so on...).
But I don't want to be a smart ass
no no, it's fine.
I was confused. I was using "grams" to calculate my energy and came up with a huge number.
Then i did an online calculating thing, and it wanted Kg to be used as mass....
to get 1 joule, is it 1 Kg falling 1 meter? or ... what is the proper "mass" input?
If you want to calculate the force you can multiply the mass of the falling body in kg times 9.81m/s² to get the force in Newton (1 Newton is the force it takes to accelerate 1kg in 1s to a speed of 1m/s).
To get the potential energy you multiply this force (kg*g=9.81m/s²) with the height above the ground (as you said correctly Epot=mass*(acceleration=g)*height)) but the unit you use for force is the SI unit kilograms. So if you climb 5 meters, weigh 50kg and you are on earth you should have:
50 kg × 9,81 m/s² × 5 m = ca. 2452.5 kgm²/s²(a Newtonmeter Nm) = 2452.5 J (Joules)
That equals 0.585769561 kcal so you have the energy of 50ml of coke zero
OK, my bad, Kg it is!
yeah many people think that grams are the SI unit for mass but in fact its the IPK, an old platinum-iridium cylinder that is, after the well defined cleaning procedure, used every year to redefine the kilogram exactly. There's a funny article about that here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor … =112003322
We'll it certainly is crazy
Yeah, I remember reading that. I was like... just assign it a number, it isn't really that big of a deal!
I just always assumed that "gram" was the measurement, not KILOgrams.
Ahhhh !! this is one of those "you can't prove that what happened millions of years ago therefore you can't prove that god doesn't exist things"
Which misses the entire point that nobody can prove anything that happened five minutes ago let alone thousands or millions of years ago - it is all conjecture supported by evidence ONLY.
Rafini is clearly not a moron - so the childish questions are leading to a devastating punchline somewhere I guess.
Hmm we get closer and closer to perfecting the puzzle finally answering all questions we have - every day and every time science discovers something, religion has to take a step back and invents new counter-theories proving science to be wrong after all. I think this will never stop... But it's just foolish to think that we're the only planet within billions of other solar systems let alone the billions of galaxies existing. And if you check the Kepler space telescope program you know that exoplanets outside our solar system are being discovered daily some of them are even likely to support life as we know it (at least one day they could)
But that is another question...
Scientists don't want to completely destroy religion, in a way it's what kept us all from living without ethics and rules while on the other side causing millions of deaths because even religions among each other want to be the only answer. But that is more of a philosophical question...
Are you a Ph.D? If so, in what area of study?
There is only one comment you made that I disagree with:
"... religion has to take a step back and invents new counter-theories proving science to be wrong after all."
I cannot recall any instance where religion has "proved" science to be wrong.?
In fact, I cannot recall a time when religion could
Thanks for your comment
Yeah in Physics and Chemistry Although I'm working at an European University, that's why my English's not flawless and that's why I wasn't clear in my post here:
"... religion has to take a step back and invents new counter-theories proving science to be wrong after all."
What I meant is that religious institutions often don't admit scientific discoveries e.g. it took really long until the vatican approved that the earth isn't flat or that our solar system is heliocentric...
hope I made that clear
Yep ya did!
I envy your gift for math, physics and science in general!
I have my "talents" but was invisible when the brains for math and science were passed out...lol
When folks like you sit me down and explain in "laymans" language the results of math and physics research, I can understand it.
I love everything Hawking has offered. His thoughts are presented at the "grade school" : level which for me to understand is necessary.
Thanks for responding.
You are using English very well!
Haha guys this thread is on FIRE
Thanks qwark! Oh and it's never too late to learn anything - and Hawking is just amazing, when I was young I always read all his work and listened to recordings of his lectures (that was before he had that terrible accident at the CERN) and even know every book he publishes and every documentary he makes is an absolute must. And it's also cool if different people have different talents. Imagine earth to be full of people with only one talent - that would suck .
As a "scientist" myself I have to say that science, knowledge and intelligence are three separate things and everybody has to do the things he likes and not force his interest in a field where you get money, or prestige or please your parents (that's why so many students study law or economics and end up not being happy...).
The most important part about life is being happy, that's what keeps you going to work everyday and living your life.
To get back to Hawking, he's such a great person because he doesn't treat science as if it is a privilege, and that's why he can explain scientific phenomena/topics to EVERYBODY. Take certain Doctors as another example, it's the typical cliché that they talk in their own academic language to sound intelligent and to be admired (that's still why many kids today want to be a doctor when they grow up). But basically they could simply explain everything without those academic terms.
I know a lot of this "doctor-stereotype" has (fortunately) changed but I wanted to tell that knowledge alone does not equal power. It's the way you share it with other people what makes you stand out. And that's why people admire Albert Einstein, Steven Hawking or Michael Faraday (just to name a few), because they don't keep their knowledge but share it with the world!
Ok I admit, I got a bit off-topic
Yes, esoterica can be a turnoff!
Thank goodness for you and the likes of "specialists" who care to share!
Ya'll make life much more interesting for me..:
Thanks again for the compliments qwark
Well I love anything related to Esotericism, and so do most of my colleagues. In a way science and esotericism are closer related to each other than anyone would think . So I'm definitely glad that there are esoteric specialists out there sharing those wisdoms with us!!
yes, china man, you've missed it. probably because you weren't directly involved.
no, I seem to be under the delusion that anything can (and does!!) happen. that's how the earth came to be, right? a cosmic 'one time only event' collision that caused life to be born and evolve. just because.
Why would you think the earth forming is a one time only event ? There are uncountable planets out there that formed in much the same way, the way they end up developing is down to the mass and energy in the process. I keep an open mind and do not think or say there is not a god - or that the earth formed exactly as we think it did - but I do see evidence and theories that hold together and can be shown to be probably correct by repeatable experiments. Any evidence or the teeniest indication of a god - NO. The old chestnut of who created it is simply answered by who created the god that you think did it - and it gives the same answer if a god just is , then so can the universe just be.
Why would you think the earth forming is a one time only event
oh, this one is fairly simple. lol
is this process known to have occurred before? where the earth and moon formed and life evolved out of nothingness?
this thread has shown me info about cosmic collisions and such, but I was referring specifically to the earth and moon sequence of events.
I think Rafini listens to some fundie preacher far more intently than she ever listened in school.
You are questioning! That is a characteristic of "intelligence!"
You keep right on questioning and don't let what anyone says disturb your quest for learning!
If you were a "closed" mind, you would have backed off long ago after getting so many, of what I think of as being "demeaning" responses."
Question away woman!
I respect that extremely important aspect of human character.
But!...learn to seperate the "wheat-from-the-chaff!"
Good luck with your studies! :
One time? The same kind of events formed the other planets and also formed planets around other stars that we are only recently able to observe.
As to life, we are also beginning to understand that it is probably not just likely, but inevitable, with no gods needed.
oh goodness gracious! now we're back to the absolute beginning! How did the universe form out of nothing? spontaneous existence?
I am no longer certain if you are just being deliberated slow in understanding the information being offered to you or just determined to mis understand anything that contradicts your assertion that your, “God Did It !”
“The 23 degree tilt of earth does not prove the 23 degree tilt of earth was caused by a cosmic collision which resulted in the earth having a moon!”
Just what else do you suppose might cause this to happen ? We just fell over one day... or your God gave us a poke with his heavenly stick or what ?
Originally it seemed as though you were asking a serious question and looking for enlightenment, from a review of the answers (well most of them) we have given you a reasonable amount of information most written in a language that a first year student could grasp.
Yet you continued to challenge as if you know better, or worse you know something we don’t.
You wrote: about impacts...
“ if it happened once, it most surely could happen again, but hasn't in 50 billion years??”
What do you suppose wiped out the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago ?
So please, your questions have been asked and answered. If you don’t like our answers go play Goggle, a great source of information and I feel sure you will eventually arrive at an answer you like or agrees with your lopsided views but I think it is time you stopped wasting honest people’s time.
Just another failed product of our 'education' system.
“The 23 degree tilt of earth does not prove the 23 degree tilt of earth was caused by a cosmic collision which resulted in the earth having a moon!
Sorry, I thought this was commonly understood -
The 'fact' that the earth has a 23 degree tilt does not prove a collision occurred.
Next: who says the 23 degree tilt isn't the way the earth is supposed to be? Maybe there isn't a tilt - maybe it's only perceived as a tilt because humans feel they have to explain everything.
If you really want to understand this stuff, honestly, and not just for the sake of debating or attention, go check out this series from the History Channel:
this is interesting - thank you shadesbreath.
many of the questions I've asked here are questions I've had since childhood - I honestly had no idea there were answers already (for some of them) . It's good to know.
I watch the programs whenever I can, (which isn't very often b/c I rarely have cable tv) because the subject fascinates me. But, after this experience, I have to wonder why. What is it I really want to know? I also have to wonder - do I really care about the origins of mankind, earth, or the universe?
Maybe just living is enough for me.
Living, for me, is the process of learning. I love to learn new things. Learning is an end in and of itself.
Why do we see retired senior citizens auditing college classes? They will never use that knowledge - it is worthless on a practical basis. It's just fun to learn. Never stop.
oh, I mean just living as opposed to devoting my life to understanding the universe. I enjoy learning and will never stop, but what I choose to learn, at this point, is up to me.
Let's see, should I learn to play the piano or the flute? I think I'll learn the piano, not because I don't believe the flute is a good instrument, but because the piano suits me better.
Should I devote my educational life to understanding the universe, or continue with the humanities that make more sense to me?
I never really made the choice, that so many do, in high school about what I was going to do with the rest of my life. Too many options! And, for some reason, choosing to leave science behind is causing me much grief. I'd really, really, like to continue, but I only have one life and a single life on earth only lasts so long.
Do I want to spend the rest of my life searching for answers I may never find? Or, would I prefer to use the remainder of my life creating written pieces of art?
I'm choosing to create written pieces of art. Even in art you never stop learning.
"Should I devote my educational life to understanding the universe, or continue with the humanities that make more sense to me?"
You can do all of the above!
There are limitations to everyones aptitudes.
My aptitude for math (quantitative)is nil, but...for the "qualitative" i.e. communication, humanities, art etc., I have excelled!
Find your "niche" and excel!
That doesn't mean that the results of science and math can't be understood by me. They certainly can if "couched" in laymans terminology.
I study everything!
Be a "multitasker" in ref to learning, but for goodness sakes, make "logic and reason" the foundation of your eventual beliefs!
Go for it! :
I think that's what I was trying to say.
I'll learn from others in regard to the scientific aspects of the universe, although I can still question what's out there, and push myself to the limit in the area of the arts.
Well, lots of people on here are assuming you are trying to work into a creationist argument for the origins of the universe.
Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. The truth is, all this science explains HOW the planets and all that stuff happened. NONE of the science tries to explain WHY it happened or WHO did or did not set the thing in motion.
There is absolutely zero conflict between science and religion. In fact, I spent a little time going through Genesis just for fun and, if you read it properly, it can be easily interpreted to PROVE that God is the one who separated the "sky" and who made man from dust (star dust.. that's where all the elements came from, stars make the elements as part of the fusion process an blow them out into the universe, where they formed worlds, and from our world we were formed of those elements... etc.).
There is just NO collision between science and religion unless you decide, or I decide, or someone to decide they want to make that conclusion. The data does not support a yes or no on God. It only shows what happened. A God could have made it happen just as easily as not, and no scientist can prove to you that God did not start the ball rolling. Very few will try. That's nto what scientists do.
So, if you are worried about a percieved attack on God. Don't be. And if you just want to live and enjoy, and have a mild curiosity, well, read and ask as you have. It is a great subject, and one I really love.
That is why I find the whole evolution/creation debate to be a waste of time. Evolutionary theory, IMO, is a very poor philosophical tool for proving/disproving the existence of God.
Existence of what? God?
Why would anyone try to "disprove" nothing? It would be "an exercise in futility."
This god thing only exists in opinion and opinions are worth less than a dime a dozen in todays economy...
Unfortunately, that sums up my opinion of the entire evolutionist/creationist debate - it is a lot of noise about nothing in particular.
Sadly, it has entered the realm of politics and I suspect that we share a similar view about politicians.
With you on the opinions thing - I long ago accepted that my opinion is of less importance than what color dress Lady Gaga wore yesterday
No gods are possible. A creator, sure, but a creator is no god.
Science does, in fact, speak against the ideas of religion.
I'm not sure why you insist on a distinction between "gods" and a "creator." It's like saying I can call my old man "Dad" but not "Father." Semantics, I say.
Science speaks against some parts of religion, specific stories, like that the great flood that set Noah afloat was not responsible for land formations and that sort of thing.
What no good scientist does, is claim he/she has evidence that god does not exist. The ontological nature of God is not a scientific enterprise.
The other thing that scientists don't do, is deal in metaphor. Holy books are, at least for the interesting theologians, metaphors that examine existential and spiritual "realities." Science can't lock any of that stuff down and separate the atoms, so they don't try.
It's not semantics at all.
A creator can be a fourth year physics student in an alternate universe. That's not a god.
No gods are possible in any scientific thought.
Oh, and there are no spiritual "realities".
A creator could also be a group, who realuzing that their current universe was expanding forever and would cool to death, rearranged things using technology we cannot imagine to cause it to collapse and cause a Big Bang.
Again, not a god.
But you have no way of confirming whether or not that fourth year student exists any more than you have of proving or disproving it was the God of the Bible or anything else.
Furthermore, what's to say that the fourth year student in that alternate universe isn't God in ours. You are trying to railroad what God can or must be into some narrow definition. Which is fine if you want to do it, but it is meaningless given that you have no evidence to pin it down.
Frankly, a nebulous and open question and patiently hopeful expectation that are loosely held together by the term God allows for more possibilities than the term creator as you suggest it. By insisting that it must be a simple creator rather than anything magnificient implies that you know with absolute certainty that there is nothing you don't know about it. Which, again is fine, but I don't have that kind of certainty myself, and would, frankly, consider it conceit to claim it given how tiny my experience here on this little blue rock of Earth is.
Sounds like you desperately need to believe that.
So go believe it. You are wrong, but there is no harm in it.
Desperately need to believe what?
I don't BELIEVE anything. You on the other hand, seem to require the ability to command absolute certainty on the issue, an issue which has challenged and delighted the greatest minds of all time, minds like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Liu, St. Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Nietzsche, Russle, Leibniz, Einstein, Sagan, Hawking... etc. All these great, great intellects chewing on the ontology of God, coming to (or not) differing conclusions about God: no certainty, no agreement.
But you, somehow you managed to have it all figured out for sure to the point where you can condescend not only to believers but to people like myself who choose to have an open mind and are still thinking about this very thing that boggled those minds far greater than our own.
Or are you saying you are more clever than those fellows I mentioned, and therefore DO know for sure and can prove it?
If so, my God man, where is your concrete evidence, your book? You can save the world!
Some of those "great minds" did not have the level of scientific knowledge we have today.
As to those who should have known better, yes, I am smarter than they were, at least in this area.
Minds can be far too open. All things are NOT possible. No god is possible, period.
I really do not care that you are not able to understand why gods are impossible. It apparently makes you happy to believe otherwise. That's fine with me.
I have no need to believe they are possible, frankly, it seems highly, highly unlikely that they exist, but that does not mean they cannot or do not.
I am only "not able to understand gods are impossible" because you have not shared with me the reason that they are impossible. Tell me why they are impossible.
If you still insist that gods are possible, then it is plain to see that you cannot understand that they are not. It's that simple.
The lowest possible definition for a god is a self created sentience.
Accidental assemblance of matter or evolution does not produce a god. A god must be self created. That's plainly impossible, so the theist falls back on "always existed" but that fails on grounds of entropy.
No god is possible. Period.
"Self created sentience" is only one possible definition of god, and I have no idea what scale or heirarchy you are using to rate higher and lower definitions.
More importantly, entropy is not evidence against the possible existence of God for a few reasons.
1. Entropy is both order and disorder. If a system drifts apart so that no unit of it is connected or influenced to/by any other unit through any relationship then lack of a system becomes static; it must become so, or some relationship would form itself randomly (again). So for entropy to persist, it must become static. However, when the whole of something is static and unmoving, then by that stasis, it is a new structure, as structures are things that are formed and orderly. Something that does not change has order. So, you can argue god is disproved because of entropy, but as soon as entropy undoes the possibility of god (as you claim it does), it creates the possibility of him in the same instant.
2. More signficantly, God can exist outside of the elements to which "entropy" applies. A god does not need to have a system or order to be God. He could be as well defined by his disorder as he can be by his order. And, a god, by definition (if there is such a thing), does not have to follow the same rules of physics that we assume we are regulated by. In fact, it seems counter intuitive to think that a god would follow the same rules we do. He wouldn't be a very impressive god if he did.
3. To argue that God "just is" is no different than arguing that the Big Bang "just happened." Simply because we can prove that the Big Bang did happen, does not mean we can prove why it happened. Furthermore, we can't actually get all the way back to the moment it happened; we only have math getting us to like 6 seconds after it happened. So, while I will grant that just because we don't know what happened during those missing six seconds does not mean God lit the match, I will also point out that it certainly does not disprove that God lit the match either. Meaning, there is no evidence to prove that the possibility of God does not exist, much less that he doesn't actually exist.
You still have not proven God cannot possibly exist. To make that claim, you have to be able to support it. Otherwise, your claim is just as empty as the claims of the religious guy swearing up and down to me that "the evidence of God" is right before my eyes.
As I said, you are incapable of understanding. Your reply shows that.
A being cannot sel-create. That would imply having existence prior to existence - religious babble.
The point of entropy is that a being that existed forever runs out of energy. It can't be a closed system. Therefore, there is more than it, therefore it is not the beginning. It is not a god. It cannot be all encompassing, it has to depend on entropy.
Taking your being out of our universe accoumplishes nothing but pushing it out of our universe. It has exactly the same problems wherever you put it. Turtles all the way down.
Your number 3 just shows your inability to understand the above. The Big Bang is an event of physics. It is neither sentient or self created. The difference is obvious.
I understand you don't get it. You probably never will. You are hardly alone, but you are ever bit as foolish about this as any theist.
I've been civil and respectful to you this entire time and have done nothing to deserve condescension and rudeness.
That's the way he argues.
LOL Just ignore him, unless he is saying something of a value - that do happen, but is quite rare. At least this is what I do.
Oh, I won't be engaging with him again. It's the exact same as arguing with one of those religious people who is absolutely sure they KNOW the answer too.
Believe it or not, I don't see any difference between people who passionately believe in something - absolutely the same zealotry and irrationality, be it about god, government, or global worming.
Yep. To do so, you have to decide that you are done thinking. It is the path of least resistence though, and I imagine it is fun to be right and righteous.
I think it was. But it was so long ago, I don't really remember
you have to decide that you are done thinking
ya know, a few years ago I fit into this category...I'm soo glad I changed my mind!! Learning & Thinking are way too much fun!!
Ya gotta take on the attitude of the little robot :"number 5" in "short circuit" which was: "INPUT, INPUT, INPUT!'
When beating dead horse with a broken stick it is time to carry the load yourself Cofusedious !
Science is only a set of theories that have yet to be disproven.
A single piece of mass that falls up COULD disprove gravity.
But it has yet to happen.
Funny, because that's exactly what your problem is. You "know" that gods cannot be disproved, therefore gods cannot be disproved, which is typical circular theist reasoning.
''"My God transcends loggia, He is BEYOBD all that!!".
No. All gods are impossible by simple logic as I explained earlier. Defining a god as something that is beyond logic is just more circular reasoning.
You are EXACTLY like the theists. Someone has TOLD you that you cannot disprove gods, you blindly accepted it and use circular reasoning to support it.
Even I think gods are possible - as far as I am concerned, there are an infinite number of possible gods - which just makes one infinitely improbable.
I don't believe there is one - as it makes no sense, but - possible - sure. You define it - I will disprove it.
Science allows no god that has ever been proposed.
Science can easily disprove any "god" - unless you want to redefine the word as Shades seems to want to.
The idea is nonsense. As you noted, there is none you cannot disprove. I cannot disprove a creation, but I certainly can disprove any god.
... science can't disprove God.
By definition, a God can make himself undetectable.
Thus it's impossible to prove any god exists, and it is equally impossible to disprove his existence.
You might think it's stupid -- the Flying Spaghetti Monster makes this argument quite succinctly -- but either way, it's impossible to prove either way.
Again - you have not thought it through.
Few ever do.
Sorry, grand master hippy-man! Apparently you are the only one who has the almighty knowledge to know the existence of the undefinable.
Psssst -- Gods are, by definition, undefinable - this is why they are unprovable. You are only kidding yourself.
No, I am not the only one.
I explained earlier in this thread why no gods can exist. I'm not going to repeat that.
You want to happily pretend that you can't know, fine. Keep living in ignorance. No gods are possible no matter how foolish people prate on about it.
Just because some people say "there is a god that can't be defined, thus I believe there's a god"
... that doesn't disprove anything.
Sure, it's stupid. But it disproves nothing.
Fine. Don't think about it. Remain thinking that impossible things are possible. You have plenty of company.
I am thinking about it, you nitwit.
But saying "X exists, thus X exists" not only does not PROVE anything, but it does not DISPROVE anything.
By your logic, I can destroy the universe simply by saying "the earth exists, therefore the earth exists"
BOOOM!!! THERE GOES THE WORLD!!! I JUST "DISPROVED" THE WORLD!!!! I WILL FOREVER BE KNOWN AS THE EVIL ONE WHO KILLED EVERYONE!!! MWAHAHAHAHAH
Do you now see the fault in your logic? Using cyclical logic DISPROVES nothing...
It simply FAILS to PROVE anything.
AND I'M AN ATHEIST!!! (well, at least a secularist)
Sorry, Pcunix, YOU'RE the one that needs to think about things a bit more -- in both the fields of theology AND government.
Being religious does NOT mean you are unable to think logically. It just means you choose to believe something that is unprovable.
I have reported you for a personal attack.
I made no such argument as you imply and state here. Your failure to read what I wrote is obvious
Your exact quote:
"Defining a god as something that is beyond logic is just more circular reasoning.
You are EXACTLY like the theists. Someone has TOLD you that you cannot disprove gods, you blindly accepted it and use circular reasoning to support it."
Basically your argument is that "using circular reasoning proves things incorrect".
This is clearly incorrect logic.
Report me if you want, but you were the one to claim I'm not thinking through your arguments when in reality I'm thinking through them and showing them as full of holes.
Yes, I have reported you and I will report anyone who descends to personal attacks.
Your interpretation above is incorrect and indicates a failure to understand. As I have noted more than once, your inability to understand does not prevent me from stating truth.
Theists often revert to circular reasoning - in fact, most theistic arguments loop back to the original premise eventually, effectively stating that their god exists because he exists. Stating that a god is beyond logic is a typical ploy, and one that too many people swallow gullibly without examining how ludicrous and self referential that actually is.
But suspend all rationality, as you plainly desire to do, and pretend that a god is "beyond logic". How does it exist as a chaotic mass bound by no rules? How could it THINK? How could it decide anything? It couldn't, of course, but it is not bound by logic.
Utter and very typical theistic babble. Meaningless noise to help them avoid reality. That a supposed atheist accepts such baloney is disgusting.
Circular reasoning disproves nothing.
Nor does it prove anything.
That's the POINT, Evan.
Theists engage in circular reasoning when attempting to prove that their god things can exist. Stating that something is beyond logic and therefore doesn't have to logically exist is circular reasoning - it's meaningless babble.
Moreover, a thing that is not logical cannot exist - it can't act with intent, it can't think, it cannot have memory. That's just its mind - if we insist that it is entirely unbound by any physics or logic, it is simply chaos in the deepest meaning of the word.
I don't know that true chaos can exist, but if it could, it would not be a god. It wouldn't be anything of any use whatsoever.
I am disappointed that you have not been banned. Apparently the admins don't consider calling someone a "nitwit" a personal attack
I've reported people for far worse than "nitwit", and they've continued to post.
I've been banned for far less than "nitwit".
Your argument is making a jump. You go from "if it is 'proven' with circular reasoning, then it is illogical" - to - "if it is illogical, then it can't reason, think or act".
The second statement is not entirely correct, and the second one is not necessarily correct.
Once again "god exists, therefore, god exists" does not PROVE god. but it also does NOT DISprove god.
Sure, it's stupid to make a claim, and the exercise of saying the words involved are nothing but wasted calories, but it is proving NOR disproving anything. It's just a fallacious argument.
Fine. You don't understand. As I said before - I do not care. Your inability to understand does not change reality.
I can't waste more effort trying to explain it to you.
Evan - I want to apologize for being testy about this. I think perhaps we are using words in different ways and therefore missing what each other is saying.
I am very tired right now, so I don't want to try exploring the reasons right now, but perhaps we can try another day, in another place.
thanks, shades. Read & Ask. That will have to do!
Nice post - however, the issue only arises because creationists basically claim a scientific basis to their beliefs. So you are right on one hand that there is no conflict between science and a belief in a god - the conflict is actually between science with reason and people unable to think in the abstract.
And as Wilderness pointed out with the impacts on Jupiter - we could SEE the event happening which is EVIDENCE for such things which is the point of this circuitous twaddle that tries to justify creationism yet again by posing a set of uneducated questions and denying the answers.
Are you saying that earth was the only planet capable of life out of 80 billion galaxies in this universe, which are recorded so far ? You seriously need to read astrophysics to understand the probability of life outside our galaxy (milky way).
lol, no, that's not what I was saying. but thanks for pointing me toward astrophysics. I have a lot of thinking to do about where I want to take my education!
Speaking about life on other planets --
They've recently found that life can live by using ARSENIC instead of Phosphorous.
Holy moly! Life can exist in poison!!
Anyway, life, assuredly, lives elsewhere in the universe. The BIG questions are
1) "is that life intelligent enough to understand us?", and;
2) much more importantly "do we really want to meet that life -- they might just want to kill us and steal our planet!"
Check out the 4th comic on this website. This is "Calvin and Hobbes"... Great great great comic strip.
"We prefer your extinction to the loss of our jobs".
Holy moly! Life can exist in poison!!
This only makes sense - some plants that humans eat are like poison to cats. Likewise, some edible things are like poison to some humans but not others (as in, allergies!).
Right, but arsenic kills anything.
Except this one type of living species.
Two hints for you if you're interested in science -
1. Scientists are in process to create single cell life in lab (they replicated one cell successfully now they're interested in creating it from scratch).
2. Europa which is moon of Jupiter is likely to have life(or is close to abiogenesis process).
Science started as a way to explore the environment around humans. Then deluded preachers who wants to put people in one box of thinking attempted to guide people to god or prayers and in turn misguided people against science for their own purpose. You can study science and still believe in god if you want to. Just picture things this way - Universe >god as life form > secondary life forms (humans and others) and that way you can still keep your god and discard delusional concepts of any staunch religion which expects you to discard science.
I don't think so. You can posit a creator that way, but you can't assign the omni-characteristics necessary for a "god".
yeah but that way atleast we get them out of religious delusion.
Christianity is keeping people inside box of beliefs where they've imagination limit like - life exists on earth only, milky way as only galaxy (don't be surprised if they fail to differentiate between galaxy and universe) and so on. If we take omniscience characteristic of their god out then they'll revert back to their belief because people prefer fantasy and moral support over facts.
No, the moon was never a sun. The moon was once a part of earth and was ejected from the earth after a proto-planet or large body collided with earth when it was still a molten ball. How we know this is because the earth and moon have essentially the same mineral and chemical composition. No other planet in the solar system has this composition. Also, when the sun or a star dies it does not become a solid sphere going around another planet and in most cases it would be the other way around, the planets going around the sun.
Then you're going to have tough time getting acceptance for it or even observing if there is any way to get it accepted. Almost every religion has book similar to bible with same rehash stuff. There are even older religions than Christianity(take case of hindusim, jainism) where theologists documented more stuff than bible. But none of them managed to get into the details and the facts that we know through science. For example, bible doesn't explain about life outside this planet. There is no mention about any other galaxy with life or planets capable of keeping our species alive outside this galaxy. It fails to explain the details of life, universe and most important point survival of species. Prayers, faith doesn't save life or any species on this planet. Deluded reasoning to defend the book is waste of time. Though people think there is no collision between religion and science but in my opinion lack of details is the biggest flaw which separates science and religion.
Rafini, do you understand what causes winter and summer on our planet?
He thinks it's god
I cannot believe that the idea of creationism is still that prevalent among todays society! (unfortunately mostly in the United States, a progressive country...). I don't want to ban the idea of creationism, everybody's (or should be) free to believe whatever he wants (at least in his own mind). But somehow sooner or later one has to ask questions and scrutinize the creationism theory??
The Creation posters are so confused about science such as "organic material" being part of everything in the universe. If a creationists doesn't know organic material comes from material which once was alive, then educating them as to the workings of the universe is an uphill battle.
Of course, anyone with a basic science background has no problem understanding the possibility or probability of how things came to be as they are. Unfortunately, it is much easier to merely accept what uneducated religious spokesmen tell them. I suppose spreading ignorance is not considered a sin by Christians.
To be fair, some of the confusion stems from the different interpretations and language usage between scientific disciplines. For example, many biologists would use your definition of organic matter, myself included.
To a biochemist or astrobiologist, organic matter could mean any hydrocarbon compound - it doesn't necessarily mean that it was created by life.
Gets a little confusing!
But to someone who has trouble understanding that two earth's crashing into one another would totally obliterate the two objects involved...
... i doubt they meant the bio-chemistry definition of organic.
It can get a little confusing, certainly in terms of astrophysics/astrobiology/geology.
For example, scientists often talk about 'organic compounds' being present in comets. The way that some of the various documentaries portray this, it is easy to understand why some equate this with 'life.'
Sometimes, scientists do not always do a good job of explaining what they mean - on this, I agree with RDSPhD
EDIT: Rafini - Lava was not necessarily life. Many sedimentary rocks at the surface were once composed of living things - limestone is a good example - and sometimes heat and pressure from the earth's interior deforms these into metamorphic rocks, such as marble. So, my house is built upon rocks that were once living creatures!
When you get to the core of the earth, most of that existed long before life appeared
Usually if someone says "organic material", they are referring to something that is or was once living. When they mean the other, they usually say " organic compound" if the context is not otherwise clear.
Even Carl Sagan, one of the greatest astrobiologists of all, makes little distinction between the two:
This article also refers to organic compounds as organic matter:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 04349.html
There are many more examples.
I stand by my earlier point - with these terms used interchangeably, it is little wonder that people can confuse the two
EDIT: D'oh! Just noticed that you said material, not matter. It has been a long day! Still, organic material is a term also used for compounds, even by NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassi … 42505.html
I do agree, Sufi! I assumed Rafini was referring to "organic material in the biological sense. My mistake if she was not doing so. Thanks for explaining the difference in the proper manner.
Here's a fantastic set of videos that shows the idiocy of "creationism science"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4G … re=related
Science doesn't make sense to you because you're not taking effort to understand it. It's hard to solve triple integration math problems because it doesn't make sense in solving insomnia problems eh ?
Just for the sake of argument consider god with size and intellect equal to gallactus (refer to marvel comics for more info), do you think he'll send weak sparrow like yeshua to dominate (err guide) human beings ?
Since we're on the discussion of "why don't people understand basic science", i want to encourage everyone who doesn't understand science a fantastic set of videos to catch up:
It's very easy to understand. It's taught by a VERY VERY VERY knowledgeable professor at the University of Berkley.
Each one is about an hour long.
He uses countless demonstrations and visual aides to explain things.
if the moon had been a sun, ever, it would either a) still be BURNING GAS or b)be entirely burned up! BECAUSE, no one I have ever heard of has ventured to guess what is really at the center of our sun! Tell me, if I'm wrong and point me towards some other scientific mumbo jumbo and if I have TIME * I'll read it!
*TIME - that commodity we seem to never have enough of, yet it is never all gone!
"Scientific mumbo jumbo"? No one you have ever heard of? Does this mean you are familiar with Stellar theory and don't recognize the names of any of the theorists?
Or, because you aren't familiar with the theories, and because you don't recognize anyone who has "ventured to guess" what is at the center of the sun, it is "mumbo jumbo"?
this means only that I am barging into a thread where pseudo-scientists parade as if they know things no one else could figure out and since I am always in AWe, totally in AWE of pseudo science, I thought I'd just contribute a wee smile.
go on - talk amongst yourselves, while I go get some sunshine!
No problem, Mega. Thanks for your pseudo-helpful input. Don't get pseudo-sunburn!
When you "pass away," you will die still waiting for the "proof."
Get on with your life knowing this.
Life is a "one way trip." Make the most of it!
Eternity is a very long, long,long,long, long etc., ad infinitum time! :
exactly! that's why I'm choosing not to devote the remainder of my life to searching for the answer to an unanswerable question.
huh, wonder if I made that decision before....? lol
Rafini has also managed to start a thread that has run to over 10 pages, without descending into all out flame war.
That is something else to be proud of!
What's up Rafini? And, from what I've seen in this thread, I didn't miss much, but thank you for thinking I did.
A burned out star implodes before it explodes. Form becomes so unstable that it implodes and once gravity pulls everything into a lump…it explodes. I think thats the way I saw it happen.
There is an amazing amount of knowledge in this thread - Thank you to everyone for contributing! I appreciate it.
When small star like sun gets into supernova phase the planets close to it will get swallowed by it and way before that life on those planets will end due to radiation.
Technically,yes. Metals in liquid state that you see in manufacturing units are also one type of lava, only difference is that they produce less heat than earth's core with which you're comparing.
In space lava gets cold over time because it can't draw further heat from the neighboring particles etc. Even after supernova, stars turn into small dead planets and meteorites because there is no further heat that remains in them. Think of it like campfire where you have no more wood and so the fire goes low over a period of time.
You're ignoring the property of lava - it turns solid objects into liquid state and draws heat from it. If you drop 1k rocks in the volacno you'll only turn those rocks into molten state with more heat as gift to volcano. When another planet similar to earth collides with it then energy is created because of impact, friction and fusion like we discussed earlier.
Those different colors are due to minerals and gases that caused it to take different shape and color. You can study this in geology class, how the rocks which got cold over a period of time and with environment changed its color. Some gases if trapped inside the rocks will decide it's color, strength of minerals in it.
Take case of wood then and let it be on fire, when you add more material that burns with it will keep it burning. Same is the case with lava, you can almost burn anything on this planet in lava. Type of energy that lava generates is heat - so anything from which it draws heat helps it remain active, gas,solid matter etc.
No. You can turn metals and rocks into molten state and they'll be semi-fluid but with very strong heat. In order to allow it to erupt you need to trap the gases that it generates. Take case of mountain, gases are trapped inside the mountain and because of which they find the top of mountain as place to escape. Gases attempting to escape from the bottom of the mountain to top help volcano to erupt. If not gases there is no way for that semi-fluid to erupt from the mountain.
Rafini - I want to address, once again, your son's idea that the Moon used to be the Sun. Now that you've come around to understand a bit about science, we can discuss the theory a bit more substantially.
1) "All matter with more than 1 proton was once part of a star."
-- This means that all matter that is NOT Hydrogen (on the periodic table of elements), AND about 90%+ of all hydrogen in the Universe today, was once a part of a star.
You and I are the collected waste of a dead star -- likely a big one.
2) "The moon is made up of a lot of elements OTHER than Hydrogen"
-- this means that the moon has a lot of iron, helium, carbon, and countless other elements in it.
This means that -- just like you and me -- the moon was once in the middle of a star. The moon, just like us, is the collected waste of a dead star.
So, your son is right, sort of . Almost all matter outside of stars today was once a part of a star. BUT!! The moon is NOT a part of the Sun.
Hahaha that's the reason why Hawking describes us humans as: bordeaux drinking star debris
If you're really interested in the story of us humans since the big bang check out "The Grand Design" here http://amzn.to/gUlVb3 ore the Universe documentaries Hawking has made. He really tries to explain the phenomena of religion in the context of science and also talks about the battle between creationism and evolutionism. He doesn't want to give one final answer about this matter but he surely is very convincing and uses the newest scientific discoveries to make his point.
I was very amazed when I read this book and think that it's his best one until now! (The others were a bit more complicated but this time he has taken a great effort to explain things as simple as possible).
So this really is something for you to read, Rafini!
Just go to your local book store and order a copy, you and your son can then read it and you have nothing to loose because it's really not written in a manner that would try to brainwash you it's more written in a astonishing and explaining way!
omg! You're right - this is a book I'd like to read!! Thanks!! I'll be going to the bookstore now, lol.
Haha that's your problem then All I can do is recommend you a good book - I can't force you to read it though
Haha thought it was sarcasm. Guess the cliché holds that physicists are bad at recognizing sarcasm xD
Yes the cover is magnificent! It's a brain cell and from what we assume the universe looks a lot like human brain cells where every single cell is a whole galaxy!
Really? A brain cell - Cool!! I stopped and got the book when I picked my son up from school - he seemed interested in reading it himself, when I finish. I liked the other book covers too, they captured my attention better than what you'd normally find on a book cover.
most sarcasm makes no sense to me either, not at all, and the kind I can recognize most is from my sister cuz it comes out dripping with anger and hatred.
I can recognize other kinds sometimes, after I get to know a person quite well, but then if I don't see them for awhile...I forget! Except my mother-in-law...I could never tell if she was serious, joking, sarcastic, angry, or sad.
Thank you - I just heard this in my Anthropology class today: The Theory of Evolution, while having an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence, does not disprove the existence of (any) God(s). So, I'm guessing I can continue to look at it as I always have - that Chemistry & Evolution exist to explain the process God took in creating the Universe.
(btw - I didn't take chemistry either. It became a requirement after I graduated. )
The theory of evolution has nothing to do with gods.
Logic disproves them. Very simple logic, at that.
Evolution and gods/God have nothing to do with one another.
Evolution is the simple statement that "you know how you look like your parents? there's a reason for that! It's because your parents survived long enough to have a child"
Next time attend biology class and any sane professor will tell you - evolution has nothing to do with theology, god and universe. Evolution tells you about how life on this planet is evolving.
Just for the sake of reference - abiogenesis deals with how life on this or on any planet formed. If you want to argue god vs no-god then you should attack 'abiogenesis' if you want to defend creationism, religion etc.
Right, but the problem is the part of the Theory that states all modern humans and all modern chimpanzees have a common ancestor in the hominids (or was it hominins?). That part of the Theory suggests that the current human life form is temporary and will be 'upgraded' at some point in time. I don't agree with that part of the Theory - for faith based reasons.
Unfortunately for you, evolution cares not a bit about your faith.
It should be obvious to you that we change - we have multiple races, for example. We are changing constantly, and we are evolving.
and it should be obvious to you that I get that part, easily. In fact, I've seen evolution happening!!
When my white niece gave birth to a black child only because the father was black. And, when my nephew's wife gave birth to a white child, even though she (the mother) was black. Then, my other niece gave birth to a 'yellow-skinned' child even though she was white and the father was black.f BTW - the three whites were siblings.
Honestly, evolution is just another way to explain biology. Genes. Dominant and recessive genes. Survival of the fittest - which gene is dominant? The gene that changes black skin to white? Or, the gene that changes white skin to black? The gene that dictates a 6 foot offspring, or the gene that determines a less that 5 foot 5 inch offspring?
Evolution & faith have nothing to do with each other, and I believe they agree with each other. Except for one thing - modern humans and chimpanzees having a common ancestor.
Survival doesn't depend on gene dominance. It depends upon a gene expression giving an advantage or disadvantage in the current environment. If you live long enough to breed, the genes get passed on. If not..
gene expression giving advantage or disadvantage sounds like gene dominance or recessiveness to me.
in the current environment, to me, sounds like the reasoning behind different skin tones in different environments.
So, it sounds to me like they have something in common and may even depend on each other.
If you decide to argue, I'd appreciate proof/references to your arguments like others have done. I'm not in this just to argue, but to discuss ideas.
Well, then you need a better understanding of what gene dominance means, because, like so many other things, you have it wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)
What school do you go to? They must have very poor teachers or you are far too stressed by other things and are not paying much attention.
Gene Dominance is COMPLETELY different than "a set of genes that dominate a species"
What gene dominance means is:
A mother with blue eyes (genes = xx) and a father with brown eyes (XX)have a baby... what color will the baby's eyes be?
Well, we know for certain that it will have NOT blue eyes. For someone to have blue eyes, they need TWO RECESSIVE GENES (x and x), but if X is dominant, then the baby gets an x from the mom and an X from the dad.
X "dominates" over x. Thus, the child will likely have brown eyes.
The theory of evolution says NOTHING more than "you look like your parents for a reason, and your parents were able to live long enough to have a baby".
But we know that is true. Your religion has it wrong (no surprise to me, of course).
That is because we're having very less clues for the speciation(human esp. due to faith arguments). We do see the speciation on lower level of species. some species of red ant get wings just few weeks before death or worm becoming a butterfly etc but in our case we hate to be a part of animal kingdom due to faith reasons. (But people fail to see the point that you can evolve and that could be their sky daddy's wish).
Whether you like it or not fact doesn't change that we all living species today are from single cell species long time ago. If you don't agree with humans being part of animal kingdom then ask any doctor that how many internal organs are properly used by humans in 2011 compared to humans in 1660 ? Appendices and similar such organs are likely to be deprecated from body in next few hundred years if we don't use them. Our body responds to environment a lot, for example if you live in sahara desert then chances are your skin will respond to the constant heat and adapt or if you live in Antarctica or even colder place then your body will also respond to it and your digestion, skin color and other body parts will also try to adapt to it. The body parts or species in general who fail to adapt become either extinct or go very rough change.
7 day creationism and 6000 year old earth is myth. As evolution took billion years for the changes, unfortunately for you they don't agree with each other. It is just your gut feeling and inside voice is shouting to get acceptance for your faith. Nothing more.
Have you checked up DNA analysis between humans and chimpanzees ? religious people have habit to make claims without proof but they always ignore proof from science.
whoa whoa whoa...
she said "faith". You can have faith in lots of different things.
But having faith in a 6000 year old earth is ridiculous.
If you agree that Hiroshima was destroyed by nuclear energy, then you agree that the earth is (about) 4.5 billion years old.
Whoops - my post wasn't very clear. What I meant that I don't agree with is that modern humans and modern chimpanzees descended from a common ancestor. The rest of it makes sense.
Has internal organ use changed since 1660? I haven't heard this before. As for the appendix, we discussed that (briefly!!) in Anthropology today. I wonder, why didn't the appendix adapt rather than stop being of use? (that would have been an excellent question to ask in class! but the instructor made it clear this is her first year teaching and her specialty is cultural anthropology. )
I understand environmental changes/adaptations/evolutions. Not too many of them are difficult to understand - it's some of the physical/biological that don't make sense.
Creation vs Spontaneous Existence - I believe each step towards proving the big bang theory is another step toward our understanding of how God created universal life. (wishful thinking? perhaps. but it's my wish) 7 days? 6000 years ago? Unimportant to me.
DNA? I've heard humans and chimpanzees share somewhere around 96-98% DNA along with every other thing on this earth. Not much in the way of evidence, if you ask me.
by dishyum 12 years ago
# The Sun is 330,000 times larger than the Earth.# The moons of all other planets in the solar system are named after Greek gods, except for those of Uranus, which are named after Shakespearean characters.Got more?
by sibtain bukhari 9 years ago
. ''Do ye not see that Allah has subjected to your (use) all things in the heavens and on earth, and has made his bounties flow to you in exceeding measure, (both) seen and unseen? Yet there are among men those who dispute about Allah, without knowledge and without guidance, and without a Book to...
by Faith Reaper 9 years ago
Why can the moon be seen sometimes in the middle of the day, along with the sun?I saw the moon at around 3:00 in the afternoon one day, and wondered why it was out so early, or could be seen during the day. Does anyone know why the moon can be seen during the day sometimes? Thank you...
by Myn Is Me 11 years ago
Why is the Moon without an atmosphere, though the Earth has one?
by flysky 8 years ago
What is the “speed” of gravity?Hypothetically, if one remove the Sun from its place, when the Earth would be affected? Momentary, by the speed of light or by some speed specific to the gravity...?
by Chris Mills 10 years ago
Six nations and one private co. are in a race to the moon to mine helium-3 for nuc. energy on earth.What are your thoughts on this? I haven't decided how I feel completely. Keep in mind. by using helium-3, to produce energy through nuclear fusion, there would be absolutely no...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|