YARD (Yet Another Religious Debate)
@ hamsterman: I just wanted to say that viruses are classified by a Kingdom, Phylum, Order, Family, Geneus and Species. We only ever do that with living things. I believe this is a recent change, at least in the American school system, so you may have been taught different in school.
Last edited on
| As I said in my post - after being enlightened with so much information about space and time it makes it hard to believe there is a God AND hard to believe there isn't a God. |
I think people usually feel an ovewhelming need to guess. In that, religious people and preaching atheists are very similar. They both have an urge to treat as fact something they just can't be sure of. I think the most rational choice is not to believe in things for the sake of feeling better. I'm fine with not knowing whether there's a God. I think it's highly unlikely, but I have no reasons to bet.
@TheNoobie
I should probably have left the "no offense meant" I had there. Oh well..
That might have been worded in a rather aggressive and vulgar way, but you're missing my point here.
Discussing (our comprehension of) the universe is sort of inseparable from talking about god.
If you say that you want to know, would you be satisfied if somebody gave you such answer which you couldn't doubt? (I assume you wouldn't). If you make a discovery and still have the same questions, how can you say that you got any closer? (I assume you can't). Why then do you say that knowing is what interests you.
I'm not against science or anything else. I just dislike abstract reasoning. I'm not telling you not to ask, but rather suggesting that you may have more success if you start from the beginning.
This stuff takes me ridiculously long to write. I think this somewhat replies to your paragraphs. If you don't think so, I'll try again tomorrow. If I don't know you, clearly I can't be talking about you, can I? Don't be too sensitive.
@Return 0
That's how it is. I find it fun. Don't you?
And what kind of experience is relevant when you talk about this stuff?
@Computergeek
That might be true. Wikipedia agrees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties
Though I wonder which kingdom do they belong to?
I should probably have left the "no offense meant" I had there. Oh well..
That might have been worded in a rather aggressive and vulgar way, but you're missing my point here.
Discussing (our comprehension of) the universe is sort of inseparable from talking about god.
If you say that you want to know, would you be satisfied if somebody gave you such answer which you couldn't doubt? (I assume you wouldn't). If you make a discovery and still have the same questions, how can you say that you got any closer? (I assume you can't). Why then do you say that knowing is what interests you.
I'm not against science or anything else. I just dislike abstract reasoning. I'm not telling you not to ask, but rather suggesting that you may have more success if you start from the beginning.
This stuff takes me ridiculously long to write. I think this somewhat replies to your paragraphs. If you don't think so, I'll try again tomorrow. If I don't know you, clearly I can't be talking about you, can I? Don't be too sensitive.
@Return 0
That's how it is. I find it fun. Don't you?
And what kind of experience is relevant when you talk about this stuff?
@Computergeek
That might be true. Wikipedia agrees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties
Though I wonder which kingdom do they belong to?
I'm pretty sure viruses are either prokaryotae or protoctista.
Edit: Viruses aren't taxonomised like other organisms are, they have their own system of classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification
I resent that, I don't think it's fair.
Edit: Viruses aren't taxonomised like other organisms are, they have their own system of classification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_classification
| Return 0 wrote: |
|---|
| You're all driving me nuts. I hate to say it but that sums up much of this forum. There are too many teenagers on this damn forum now that just love to debate about things they have absolutely no experience with and with such vigor, be it God or some other topic. |
I resent that, I don't think it's fair.
Last edited on
@hamster
I'm not too sensitive and I didn't get offended in any way by your post, I just thought it was a stupid reply if you want the truth. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
Of course if someone gave me an answer which couldn't possibly be doubted I would be 100% satisfied with the knowledge. If you make a discovery and still have the SAME questions, then you never really made a discovery at all (in the sense of solving the original problem.)
However, if you make a discovery and have NEW questions related to the same thing then I would be satisfied because I would be making progress. I think we'll have to agree to disagree hamster. ;)
@return 0
First of all I'm 20, so I'm not technically a teenager - but that is besides the point. You can't fully judge a persons skill / experience on nearly anything based on age. There are 70 year olds that don't know how to write a hello world program and 16 year olds that can hack a major corporation!
Regardless, this debate isn't really about what anyone does or does not know if you had read more than just my first post. The reason I started this topic was to discuss the universe and it's complexities - if you're not interested then no one is forcing you to read or reply. Furthermore I never ONCE claimed to have ANY experience or expertise in the subject and don't pretend that I do.
I'm not too sensitive and I didn't get offended in any way by your post, I just thought it was a stupid reply if you want the truth. Your reasoning doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
If you say that you want to know, would you be satisfied if somebody gave you such answer which you couldn't doubt? (I assume you wouldn't). If you make a discovery and still have the same questions, how can you say that you got any closer? (I assume you can't). Why then do you say that knowing is what interests you. |
Of course if someone gave me an answer which couldn't possibly be doubted I would be 100% satisfied with the knowledge. If you make a discovery and still have the SAME questions, then you never really made a discovery at all (in the sense of solving the original problem.)
However, if you make a discovery and have NEW questions related to the same thing then I would be satisfied because I would be making progress. I think we'll have to agree to disagree hamster. ;)
@return 0
You're all driving me nuts. I hate to say it but that sums up much of this forum. There are too many teenagers on this damn forum now that just love to debate about things they have absolutely no experience with and with such vigor, be it God or some other topic. |
First of all I'm 20, so I'm not technically a teenager - but that is besides the point. You can't fully judge a persons skill / experience on nearly anything based on age. There are 70 year olds that don't know how to write a hello world program and 16 year olds that can hack a major corporation!
Regardless, this debate isn't really about what anyone does or does not know if you had read more than just my first post. The reason I started this topic was to discuss the universe and it's complexities - if you're not interested then no one is forcing you to read or reply. Furthermore I never ONCE claimed to have ANY experience or expertise in the subject and don't pretend that I do.
Last edited on
I'm staying as far away as I can from this one. Though I do agree with Return 0.
I'm only 19 and this is making me cringe.
| Return 0 wrote: |
|---|
| You're all driving me nuts. I hate to say it but that sums up much of this forum. There are too many teenagers on this damn forum now that just love to debate about things they have absolutely no experience with and with such vigor, be it God or some other topic. |
I'm only 19 and this is making me cringe.
I don't know how this thread is making anyone cringe. All I did was make a thread about how amazing and HUGE the universe is. I hinted at the idea that it forced me to think about how it came to exist, not that I believe in any kind of God one way or the other.
How is no one else on this forum even remotely interested in this? The only replies I've really got are something along the lines of "that's dangerous thinking" and "that's a pointless question." Regardless of whether there is an answer or not, I don't understand how anyone can't be interested in learning more about and discussing the universe.
Maybe I'm just weird for being so interested in this. The strange physics that goes on in our universe (things like black holes and warp holes) are just unreal. Scientists suggest that warp holes could possibly be used to transport matter to a completely different TIME and SPACE which is hard to grasp your head around. I bet no one has even heard of white holes!
I really made a mistake naming this thread "YARD" and even mentioning God just because of all the criticism people have to include on any kind of thread mentioning religion. I suppose I will just let this thread die, but if anyone has any cool web pages, books or movies about space science please PM me!
How is no one else on this forum even remotely interested in this? The only replies I've really got are something along the lines of "that's dangerous thinking" and "that's a pointless question." Regardless of whether there is an answer or not, I don't understand how anyone can't be interested in learning more about and discussing the universe.
Maybe I'm just weird for being so interested in this. The strange physics that goes on in our universe (things like black holes and warp holes) are just unreal. Scientists suggest that warp holes could possibly be used to transport matter to a completely different TIME and SPACE which is hard to grasp your head around. I bet no one has even heard of white holes!
I really made a mistake naming this thread "YARD" and even mentioning God just because of all the criticism people have to include on any kind of thread mentioning religion. I suppose I will just let this thread die, but if anyone has any cool web pages, books or movies about space science please PM me!
Discussions that have anything to do with religion on this forum usually take a bit more than a few Star Wars IV parsecs (not actual parsecs) to die. Sometime tells me it might continue for a little bit.
That said, I think maybe some of the people here (I'm not naming any names, you know who you are) could have behaved a lot more maturely. :(
It's a pity, because the OT was fascinating.
-Albatross
That said, I think maybe some of the people here (I'm not naming any names, you know who you are) could have behaved a lot more maturely. :(
It's a pity, because the OT was fascinating.
-Albatross
Last edited on
@ TheNoobie: The problems seem to be:
A.) You labled this thread a "Religious Debate" in the title implying that it would be about Theology.
B.) You mentioned God right at your first post and in parallel with the creation of the universe then left the floor open.
C.) You underestimated how people feel and react to this type of subject.
D.) The thread was steared in the direction of theology by a few users in between your posts.
A.) You labled this thread a "Religious Debate" in the title implying that it would be about Theology.
B.) You mentioned God right at your first post and in parallel with the creation of the universe then left the floor open.
C.) You underestimated how people feel and react to this type of subject.
D.) The thread was steared in the direction of theology by a few users in between your posts.
I think the only problem here is that people who were otherwise not involved in the topic felt the need to butt in and talk about how the topic needed to be shut down.
Those of us who were actually involved in the main discussion were doing just fine in keeping the thread on track.
If you're not interested in the discussion, don't read the thread. If the only thing you have to contribute is "this topic is stupid", it's better to not contribute. No need to ruin everything for those of us who are enjoying it.
EDIT: looks like Albatross already said pretty much the same thing as me and I just didn't see it =P
Those of us who were actually involved in the main discussion were doing just fine in keeping the thread on track.
If you're not interested in the discussion, don't read the thread. If the only thing you have to contribute is "this topic is stupid", it's better to not contribute. No need to ruin everything for those of us who are enjoying it.
EDIT: looks like Albatross already said pretty much the same thing as me and I just didn't see it =P
Last edited on
I'm surprised no one has mentioned M-theory or the various string theories. They offer a plausible explanation for what happened before the universe.
To connect this post to the more religious side of the current discussion, I call myself an agnostic atheist, namely I don't believe there is a god in any form, though I wouldn't be against the idea if valid evidence for one was put forth.
Back to the path the OP wants this thread to take:
@TheNoobie, I have heard of those things as I also find physics a fascinating topic. In fact, when I was little (less than 10 years old) I wanted to be a physicist, particularly an astrophysicist or theoretical physicist.
Although, I have to say I don't really like the idea of white holes - it sounds like something you would find in a bad sci-fi movie. Also, I don't think wormholes could transport matter through time, unless it was forward in time, because that would defy causuality.
To connect this post to the more religious side of the current discussion, I call myself an agnostic atheist, namely I don't believe there is a god in any form, though I wouldn't be against the idea if valid evidence for one was put forth.
Back to the path the OP wants this thread to take:
@TheNoobie, I have heard of those things as I also find physics a fascinating topic. In fact, when I was little (less than 10 years old) I wanted to be a physicist, particularly an astrophysicist or theoretical physicist.
Although, I have to say I don't really like the idea of white holes - it sounds like something you would find in a bad sci-fi movie. Also, I don't think wormholes could transport matter through time, unless it was forward in time, because that would defy causuality.
Last edited on
@TheNoobie
This is somewhat impossible to prove as it is not quite rational. It does sort of contradict your argument about the human nature though..
The question is 'why'.
I have a feeling that Return 0 was talking about me there..
I guess I'll take my leave now..
| 100% satisfied |
| SAME questions |
| @return 0 <...> |
I guess I'll take my leave now..
| To connect this post to the more religious side of the current discussion, I call myself an agnostic atheist, namely I don't believe there is a god in any form, though I wouldn't be against the idea if valid evidence for one was put forth. |
Agreed. :)
| I don't really like the idea of white holes |
I'm not too sure either about the whole "black holes lead to white holes" and wormhole stuff, but then I don't know much about it. However, I have read that a while hole is a time reversed black hole (i.e. you start at the singularity and leave, rather than enter and approach the singularity). Both are part of the Schwarzschild solution, the only spherically symmetric exterior field solution for Einstein's equation. However, my book told me that the "white hole" region is unphysical and just an artifice of the solution.
And we can ostensibly travel forward in time anyway, you just need to accelerate to and from relativistic speed, see 'Twin Paradox'.
Nah, I wasn't directing my comment at one particular person. I should of restrained myself. If everyone is enjoying their debate that's fine and none of my business. I just hate to see arguments break out over ridiculous topics. I'm not sure which is more futile, discussing the existence of God or Java vs C++ lol!
@ Xander314 & PiMaster: Why woud you guys believe in Black Holes (BH) but not belive in White Holes (WtH) or Worm Holes(WH)? I realise that PiMaster never said he didn't believe in WH but by dismissing WtH, WH become impossible, IMO a BH is impossible without a WtH to.
The conservation of energy means that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So where do you suppose everything that gets sucked into a BH goes? The excepted answer right now is through a WH and out a WtH on the "otherside". The whole time travel thing has something to do with the speed an body of mass would be travelling if it was subjected to the amount of force a BH is predicted to have I think.
The thing I don't get about BH is that it kind of implies that the speed of light isn't constant. Which I don't like.
The conservation of energy means that energy cannot be created or destroyed. So where do you suppose everything that gets sucked into a BH goes? The excepted answer right now is through a WH and out a WtH on the "otherside". The whole time travel thing has something to do with the speed an body of mass would be travelling if it was subjected to the amount of force a BH is predicted to have I think.
The thing I don't get about BH is that it kind of implies that the speed of light isn't constant. Which I don't like.
@Computergeek I wasn't dismissing it completely - I did say I know very little about it. My textbook discussing the Schwarzschild solution says that the matter of a gravitational body will always cover up the "white hole" region, which is why it is considered by the book to be an unphysical solution. The book is a must have for GR students, but it is from the '80s so I am sure there is a lot of new thinking since then.
I did not mean to actually discount these things, although with hindsight it did look that way. I merely was saying that I'm not too convinced by these ideas, but that it could be due to my lack of knowledge in these areas. No offence meant to anyone, of course :)
The point about energy conservation is a fair point, and since the laws of relativity break down at the singularity, I suppose no explanation is precluded.
The speed of light isn't constant, AFAIK. There is such a measurable delay of radio signals sent from the earth and reflected off other planets by the sun's gravitational field. In general relativity, I believe light in fact travels under the speed c, but in all but the strongest gravitational fields (such as near the sun), this reduction is negligible.
I did not mean to actually discount these things, although with hindsight it did look that way. I merely was saying that I'm not too convinced by these ideas, but that it could be due to my lack of knowledge in these areas. No offence meant to anyone, of course :)
The point about energy conservation is a fair point, and since the laws of relativity break down at the singularity, I suppose no explanation is precluded.
| speed of light isn't constant |
The speed of light isn't constant, AFAIK. There is such a measurable delay of radio signals sent from the earth and reflected off other planets by the sun's gravitational field. In general relativity, I believe light in fact travels under the speed c, but in all but the strongest gravitational fields (such as near the sun), this reduction is negligible.
I've always thought that black holes condense the matter they consume into an infinitely small point.
Actually that's true. Why shouldn't the mass and energy just be added to the black hole.
Also, I have just read some more stuff on a university website, which says that a white hole probably cannot exist in nature. It is, as I said before, an unphysical part of the spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's equations.
A white hole can only exist if the singularity exists without any mass: as soon as there is even the tiniest piece of matter at the centre, the white hole region is covered by the mass, and no longer is a physical solution. On the other hand, the white hole can only exist without some mass if the singularity was there to start with. And why should there have been a singularity without any mass to create it.
I am not saying that white holes cannot exist, merely that it should not be taken as read that they do.
Perhaps not the best source, but: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108
Also, I have just read some more stuff on a university website, which says that a white hole probably cannot exist in nature. It is, as I said before, an unphysical part of the spherically symmetric solution to Einstein's equations.
A white hole can only exist if the singularity exists without any mass: as soon as there is even the tiniest piece of matter at the centre, the white hole region is covered by the mass, and no longer is a physical solution. On the other hand, the white hole can only exist without some mass if the singularity was there to start with. And why should there have been a singularity without any mass to create it.
I am not saying that white holes cannot exist, merely that it should not be taken as read that they do.
Perhaps not the best source, but: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=108
@ Xander314: I am REALLY sorry to do this to you, you're a smart guy and you look like you were just getting the hang of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon
EDIT: This to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
Now how would that effect the mass\singularity part of the problem?
EDIT: @ PiMaster: You are correct by the way, but see the link I posted above and then think of the term "Infinite Recursion".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_Horizon
EDIT: This to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius
Now how would that effect the mass\singularity part of the problem?
EDIT: @ PiMaster: You are correct by the way, but see the link I posted above and then think of the term "Infinite Recursion".
Last edited on
Okay, so the mass and energy goes beyond the event horizon; it can no longer affect us nor us it, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I'm pretty sure black holes can "grow" as they absorb matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Growth
Last edited on