Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Creation vs. Evolution.
mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 08:41 AM
i have seen the word singularity commonly used as describing a black hole, even tho i'm not sure what they mean by it.

RKISIT Joined Tue 01/08/08 Posts: 16721	Mon 03/19/12 08:52 AM
i have seen the word singularity commonly used as describing a black hole, even tho i'm not sure what they mean by it. to make it simple it's just a bunch of ideas on what they think is at the center of a blackhole

AdventureBegins Joined Tue 04/10/07 Posts: 7666	Mon 03/19/12 10:36 AM
A 'one dimensional' point would do absolutely nothing to three dimensional space. In order for such a point to create a gravitational vortex such as has been observed it must at least be 'multi dimensional' at the point of observance within reality. (it leaves a 'signature' therefore at least a portion of it is in this Reality). Else it would be unseen in either the world of Reality or the Reality of Mathmatics. Okay, I can't discuss this with you. You can't just reject modern science on a whim. To my knowledge there isn't even any debate on if singularities can exist. It's just about as close to settled science as science gets. I have rejected no science. I did not say such a thing does not exist. I am saying if we have detected it in Reality (and we have) then at least a portion of it must conform to reality or WE COULD NOT SEE IT. SO ... It could not be a flat place. Flat places do not exist in our current Reality. (except in the realms of math).

SanneHan Joined Thu 03/01/12 Posts: 356	Mon 03/19/12 12:02 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later...

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 12:05 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box...

SanneHan Joined Thu 03/01/12 Posts: 356	Mon 03/19/12 12:07 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you!

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 12:08 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you! all in the name of science...

SanneHan Joined Thu 03/01/12 Posts: 356	Mon 03/19/12 12:12 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you! all in the name of science... Creationism DOES have a certain appeal, when I hear the words "In the name of Science"... XD

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 12:49 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you! all in the name of science... Creationism DOES have a certain appeal, when I hear the words "In the name of Science"... XD lol... creationism is about as far from science as you can get...

SanneHan Joined Thu 03/01/12 Posts: 356	Mon 03/19/12 12:53 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you! all in the name of science... Creationism DOES have a certain appeal, when I hear the words "In the name of Science"... XD lol... creationism is about as far from science as you can get... And that's exactly why... Whenever I hear those words, I see people like Dr. Mengele before my eyes... or you with cats!

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 12:56 PM
XD If this continues, I bet we get to Schroedinger's cat sooner or later... it's dead, i looked in the box... Cat Killer, Cat Killer! Shame on you! all in the name of science... Creationism DOES have a certain appeal, when I hear the words "In the name of Science"... XD lol... creationism is about as far from science as you can get... And that's exactly why... Whenever I hear those words, I see people like Dr. Mengele before my eyes... or you with cats! i think the cat is sick.... makes this weird sound every time i poke it with a fork...

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Mon 03/19/12 01:08 PM
if you think that the planck length defines a specific finite set of allowable position along a line, this still leaves open the question of what the allowable positions might look like in 3d. I'm either being very dense here or you guys are way over my head. I think its neither - i think we are simply working with different concepts of the planck length. What's is so fascinating about this? Everything! What does geometry have to do with it? No matter what twists and turns you try to make, you can't get any smaller than a Planck length and you can't find any space between them. I accept the part in italics, and I accept that the part in bold is locally true for some particular situation - but it seems possible to me that the allowable points are not in the exact same positions at all points in time...and that wux may be correct that one could take three planck-length (it is an actual distance, and i believe that conceiving it as a distance is more correct than conceiving of it as a point) steps and (with the shifting of allowable points over time) end up at a location less than a planck length away from the original location. At that later time, there would be no 'space' in between that new location and the new nearest allowable (planck length away) location. If the allowable locations did not change in time, then there would be a 'fixed grid' to the universe, and it'd be amazing to know the geometry of it. If the allowable locations do change in time, then there could be a truly infinite number of potential locations for the billiard balls on a table (though finite at any particular point in time). This means that there cannot be an infinite number of points in any closed space. Tack on a "... at any particular point in time." and I won't disagree. And I'm not saying that I actively disagree either. I've been trying to research this, and I take back what I said earlier: that I think our species does know the answer to this question. But this rabbit hole is an offshoot of the original rabbit hole. The last time I checked, pool tables have a flat surface. So 3D doesn't come into the picture, it's only 2D. Re rabbit holes: True! It's the rabbit hole I'm most interested in. A bit of a tangent, but when asking "what positions are allowed for the balls, when considering planck-length related constraints" I think we do need to look in 3D. The planck length is so astoundingly small there's no way the pool table would be smooth enough to have them in a 2d plane... not to mention that an individual ball might shift up and down a few planck length in response to such gentle forces as tidal effects and the vibrations of a quiet conversation.

SanneHan Joined Thu 03/01/12 Posts: 356	Mon 03/19/12 01:28 PM
See? We already reached Planck - How far can it be to Heisenberg and Schroedinger??? I feel at home here... 2.5 Germans with me :D

massagetrade Joined Thu 02/22/07 Posts: 8505	Mon 03/19/12 01:51 PM
Maybe we can take further conversations about the planck length over here: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/323931

mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Mon 03/19/12 03:36 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread).

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 03:38 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that?

mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Mon 03/19/12 03:45 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 03:48 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere...

mykesorrel Joined Fri 07/15/11 Posts: 177	Mon 03/19/12 03:55 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Mon 03/19/12 03:59 PM
You have to love science, but i agree with the poster before me - you cannot compare creationism to evolution. Abiogensis would be a better suited argument. (if that abiogensis was not said already, not reading all the thread). never heard of it... whats that? Abiogenesis is a hypothesis/theory of what occurred in the early years of the earth that could have sparked life, there are many different ways scientist believe this occurred. I quickly read a lot of people say that "none of this could have happened by chance", or better yet that's what they believe, but i equally don't accept that a few thousand years ago a deity created the first man out of dirt - just my take on this whole thread. chance is the wrong word... i feel life can start on any planet, if the conditions are right, meaning temperature, water, and some kind of atmosphere... Yes, probably even much more than that. I find it ironic about creationism, is the creator doesn't need to be created. lol... he's just always been here... well, what/where was he before he created the heavens and the earth? did he just sit around in a big vat of nothingness?