I saw an interesting video about physics and the universe, but it didn't lean to religion or evolution.
It only states facts about what we know for a fact to be true nothing more nothing less. It does talk the possibility of religion, but doesn't push it.
So this topic is about what you think we are really made of.
Watch the video first.
quick summery of the video's basic's
[spoiler]What we know right now is that everything is made up of light and only light. but light seems to be made of nothing, it simply exists. how something non-tangible can make up something tangible doesn't make sense.
The basic idea of how the universe is grouped together is this:
[spoiler]????? > light > quarks > v
> gluons > Protons > v
> Electrons > v
> Neutrons > atoms > molecule > Cells > living being **
> matter > Planets > v
> Stars > v
> moons > v
> asteroids > solar systems > galaxy's > clusters > everything *** [/spoiler][/spoiler]
So the question is: What are we made of?
[spoiler]Yes I'm bored![/spoiler]
Religion is little more but mythology. We are creatures of flesh and blood, not what a storybook says. Flesh and blood is all that we are, it is all that we were, it is all that we will be.
Actually, my philosophy is that we are what we. I don't like either science or religion/mythology but I'll choose the most logical one.
hmm... I think you're missing my point... This isn't a topic aimed at anything that has to do with religion.
It doesn't matter who you are, know one knows what we are made of, and this isn't out of any book.
The fact is we are made of something that doesn't even exist. it sounds weird, but we are made of light, and light is made up of something that exists, but yet doesn't exist.
This topic is for theory's on what that is and how it works.
The thing that confuses us about this thing is: we can inter act with it, but every time we do it does something different, even if everything is exactly the same. And its not a small change in what it does, it does something completely different.
[spoiler]The easiest way to explain how it changes is this: "the ball is light" "the wall is the unknown"
test1: throw a ball at a wall it bounces back.
test2: throw a ball at a wall it splits into 6 and start talking.
test2: throw a ball at a wall it turns into a fish and blows up.[/spoiler]
Basically, if you can't predict how something reacts, you don't know how it works, and when doing the same thing does something different and something that shouldn't even be able to happen in the known universe happens... something is wrong...
We're made out of good light and evil light.
QuoteWe're made out of good light and evil light.
well, if you're going to be like that Explain what you mean, how exactly do you see it working, and how that fits with what we know.
Well, I started with what you said of us being made of light. Then I applied the basic knowledge that we are capable of both good and evil.
Starting to think this topic is too complicated for this forum >_>
<_< Or this is a forum that draws Trolls in...
It's prbably just too confusing for me.
Quantum mechanics, eh? Well, first of all, "light" is a form of electromagnetic radiation which is merely a force carried by Photons, therefore light itself cannot be considered a particle. Going further, photons are just one type of confirmed Boson which is itself only one of two categories of currently known elementary particles, the other being Fermions. These two categories combined contain at least 10 confirmed particles, and no less than 18 unconfirmed/theorized particles.
Have they found God? Interesting video title.
No, they haven't, but they have given him a new name. "Singularity".
Quote from: ThorionWe're made out of good light and evil light.
I have long pondered good and evil as one cannot exist without the other and both do not know what good or evil is until contact between the two opposing views is completed. It is all a matter of perspective. For example an "evil" person may state that he is working for a better future or a common goal, and a "good" person may state the exact same. While the actions toward said "better future or common goal" may be vastly different, both sides aim to accomplish the same thing;
eliminate the other side.
Therefore, we can state that both sides will stop at nothing to wipe out its opposition. The business world shows this too. So, which is good and which is evil? You decide.
EVIL?:Think of it as this: A totally "evil" world. No "heroes" or anything to "stop an evil plot". "Crime rate" is very high with frequent thefts and deaths. The government is a dictatorship with extremely strict curfews and high taxes. If the laws are not obeyed, soldiers would kill the offender in a very brutal way. However, everyone accepts this place for what it is. Is it evil? Maybe in your eyes, but if you were to be a "hero", the denizens may try to stop you from changing their "good and perfect" world. YOU would be branded "An Evil Villain."
GOOD?:Another example: A totally "good"" world. No "crime" of any kind. No unnatural deaths, no thefts, and no world hunger. The government is completely open to compromise and change. Is it good? Perhaps, but someone from another world may want to change this "perfect" society. The denizens wouldn't take kindly to it and brand you "An Evil Villain."
Whew... That took some time to type. Night everyone!
Quote from: Role on 10, November, 2011, 09:25:21 PM
Have they found God? Interesting video title.
No, they haven't, but they have given him a new name. "Singularity".
Then why confuse the simple folk?
Quote from: Role on 10, November, 2011, 09:25:21 PM
No, they haven't, but they have given him a new name. "Singularity".
Wait, God's the center of a black hole now o.o
This isn't really anything new... matter and energy are one and the same really, just different manifestations of eachother. That's what nuclear energy is possible, because some of that matter is converted into energy.
Quote from: Atrius on 10, November, 2011, 09:24:41 PM
Quantum mechanics, eh? Well, first of all, "light" is a form of electromagnetic radiation which is merely a force carried by Photons, therefore light itself cannot be considered a particle. Going further, photons are just one type of confirmed Boson which is itself only one of two categories of currently known elementary particles, the other being Fermions. These two categories combined contain at least 10 confirmed particles, and no less than 18 unconfirmed/theorized particles.
Now I knew about photons... but didn't even know about the rest. Something else to read up on I spose <3
This video is such bait and switch. It talks about quantum mechanics, something most people can't even understand in the first place, then throws a ton of bullshit quotes at us from the bible suggesting that quantum mechanics is somehow supporting things from religion, when the connections they're trying to make are tangentially related at best.
Anyway, the "it doesn't follow the known laws of the universe" thing isn't saying much. It's exactly what it says on the box: things at that scale don't obey the known laws of the universe. In other words, our model works for the macro scale, but we don't yet have a suitable one for the micro scale. It isn't that what happens is impossible, but that we don't yet understand what makes it possible, and until we find a way to overcome the observer effect, we probably won't.
As for "things disappearing into nothingness," I'm not sure how you got that from the video. Could you point me to where they said that?
QuoteThis isn't really anything new... matter and energy are one and the same really, just different manifestations of eachother. That's what nuclear energy is possible, because some of that matter is converted into energy.
[spoiler]The first (and best) way I was told what the atomic bomb does is, in the bomb there is a chunk of matter, and there is a small hole in it with a chunk missing, when matter is fired into that hole it creates heat, and with a few other things reacts.
(yes that's not exactly what happens but its easier to picture this way.)
the chunk of matter has every particle split and it turns into a solid chunk of pure light, heat, and other energy(like radiation).
you can think of it like taking a small chunk of the sun, compacting it a lot, and setting it free on the earth.
(chunk from the sun the size of a bowling ball, and compacting it to a ball the radius of a foot ball)
this matter is already very dense before setting it off.
(if it were a gas and you released it all at once right next to some one, if could possible kill them or at the very least knock them over and hurt them.)
the explosion acts the same way as TNT, but more efficient and volatile with the added effect of the same type of heat, light, and radiation that comes from the sun.[/spoiler]
QuoteAs for "things disappearing into nothingness," I'm not sure how you got that from the video. Could you point me to where they said that?
I think i mixed this video up and another one... the other one focused more on the details about the smallest particles... I should have posted that as well... I'll see if i can find it...
Quote from: zman9000 on 11, November, 2011, 11:00:59 PMThe first (and best) way I was told what the atomic bomb does is, in the bomb there is a chunk of matter, and there is a small hole in it with a chunk missing, when matter is fired into that hole it creates heat, and with a few other things reacts.
(yes that's not exactly what happens but its easier to picture this way.)
the chunk of matter has every particle split and it turns into a solid chunk of pure light, heat, and other energy(like radiation).
What the... Ignoring the completely incorrect description of it having a hole you fire matter into, and heat or anything like that being the primary catalyst for the reaction... It's atoms that are splitting, not particles. The electrons, protons, and neutrons that make up those atoms remain intact. In fact, alpha & beta radiation are actually just very fast moving particles that escaped from the atoms during fission or decay, gamma is the only type of radiation that is energy.
To explain the energy that's generated you should know it requires energy to add particles to an atom (For simplicity's sake we'll ignore the cases where you get more back than you put in for now). Since energy cannot be created or destroyed, once those particles are removed that energy used to hold them in is released.
All of that is for fission bombs anyway. With fusion bombs you get into the cases where adding particles to an atom achieves a state that requires less energy to maintain, and the excess is released.
Additional fun fact: Gamma radiation is an extremely high energy form of electromagnetic radiation, which as I said in my last post is carried by photons. So gamma rays are made of the same fundamental forces as light, it's just way way beyond ultraviolet frequencies.
yes yes, I under stand all this but i said...
Quote(yes that's not exactly what happens but its easier to picture this way.)
my point in this is, I could go through and explain the details on hot the actual process is, but instead i said chunk of matter fired at another piece of matter to start it...
this is sorta true as particles are fired into the main piece of matter of the bomb, this excites the atoms, and after a few seconds one of the atoms goes... well nuclear... this causes a chain reaction setting off the rest of it. the immense energy in the main forms of light, heat, and radiation, explode out wards causing a massive blase from a small amount of matter, with very little energy used to set said matter off... this is why nuclear energy is so valuable, with controlled release of energy, it can be... in a sense... a very long lasting battery...
QuoteSince energy cannot be created or destroyed, once those particles are removed that energy used to hold them in is released.
This brings up another good point. I remember hearing that this statement came into question after a few experiments with the new particle collider. In a few experiments some matter was unaccounted for... this means they broke down that matter to a point where physical, electromagnetic, and gravimetric form on longer exists... which means It could still be there, but can not interact with anything in the known universe. it would be something un effected my gravity, motion, and anything else... and that means we may never under stand it, because to us it doesn't even exist...
here's how I see it. we are star dust. you see, hydrogen was the only element released during the big bang. gravity started to pull the gas in to clumps. over billions of years, those clumps became so dense, they pushed the hydrogen atoms together starting nuclear fusion. and creating the diversity of element we have today. the elements are all made in stars from the nuclear fusion reactions with hydrogen and the other elements.
1 4 0
4 H ~~~> He + 2 e
1 2 -1
all of the 92 non-transuranium elements are made from this in stars. when stars explode, the fling all of the materials made far and wide. after a few million supernovae over billions of years, planets from from the heavier elements that don't make stars because not enough hydrogen collected ro start fusion. so all the elements in your body are between 1 and 92 and all of them were made in a star. so therefore, simply put, we are star dust, bum budum bum bumbumbum. (refering to state farm: we are farmers!)
then again, I may have just misunderstood this whole topic. :/
also. Hiroshima bomb
6 2 8
Li + D ~~~> Be
3 1 4
just random info on hows its done.
QuoteStarting to think this topic is too complicated for this forum >_>
<_< Or this is a forum that draws Trolls in...
So I think I'll give up then... it seams that what I'm trying to say isn't as easy to say as I thought...
Quotehere's how I see it. we are star dust. you see, hydrogen was the only element released dur
I read that far, then it hit me, he gets what I want out of this topic... but not quite...
stop thinking Hydrogen... what is it made out of (protons)... ok what is that made out of (quarks) ... ok what is that made out of... (at this point no one knows, which is why this is a theoretical topic, and its for you're theory about what every thing really is made of, at its base...)
apologies. I posted before I watched the video. I see what u mean now. i didn't think anyone else would go that deep. this is the best topic ever this is the stuff I LOVE!!! jugs think, the empire state building. made up of mostly empty space. take that space out and boom. all that weight is smaller than a grain of rice. then again, take 1mol of hydrogen and make (somehow) each atom of the avagadro number the size of a grain of sand. it would cover the state of Texas 18,000 yards deep. so much insanity. I loves it. then there's negative energy and negative mass. and the mistake in Einstein's equation that most ppl don't know. it should be E=+/-mc^2. the plus or minus has to be there and that created negative energy and negative mass. but that has nothing to do with this. this has got me soooo ezcited. I'm just babbling. sorry. ever heard of shrodinger's cat?
You know, I just noticed, did anyone bother to read the description?
QuoteCLEANTV.com
CleanTV® is your safe haven for educational and entertaining television programs. https://www.netsoftwaretools.com/clean/redir.php?id=5_1
LISTEN LIVE! Streaming ONLINE "Freedom Fridays" with Carl Gallups 1330 WEBY AM - Northwest Florida's Talk Radio - HOME WEBSITE
http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/radio/
From Ichthus Films. This film first presents a brief and simple understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Then from the truths we learn there - we apply those truths to what the Bible says about God and His relationship to us. It seems as though Science may have finally "found" God! ENJOY
Bias much?...
Quote from: Thorion on 10, November, 2011, 02:27:55 PM
Religion is little more but mythology. We are creatures of flesh and blood, not what a storybook says. Flesh and blood is all that we are, it is all that we were, it is all that we will be.
Actually, my philosophy is that we are what we. I don't like either science or religion/mythology but I'll choose the most logical one.
I do want to say something about this - now, whether or not religion is accurate or not I don't want to debate, but it is very important to humanity. Many of the social structures, moral guidelines, as well as, believe it or not, scientific progress is owed to religion. Whether God exists or not is irrelevant - but mankind's desire to know who they are, what their purpose in life is, and how the world works is very important, and we wouldn't be who we are today without religion. There's several points to this:
First, morality and social behavior. Now, many atheists and scientists wish to discount religion altogether, but I believe this is a mistake. As we reject religion and moral backgrounds, we fall more and more into chaos. Look at how much rioting and what not has been going on recently. Compare peaceful protests by largely religious groups with the current protests of those who couldn't care less about religion, it's quite telling. Society needs some kind of structure and moral guidance, and religion has regularly been the basis behind it. Whether or not God exists is irrelevant - humanity has a desire to believe in something better than they are, to strive to improve and take a moral high ground. Their desire to be the better person is driven not by what is expected of society, but by the influence of religious beliefs within society.
Second, scientific process. Contrary to popular belief, modern science has its roots in religion. The strong desire to know where we came from, to understand our place in the universe and how the world works - these are things religion has tried to answer for years. As advances in understanding were made, we stopped turning to things like magic and instead turned our attention towards a more practical approach, experimenting and analyzing everything around us. The elements went from "Fire, Earth, Wind, Water, and Aether" to the freaking periodic table. And most of the funding and research... was done by the church. To better understand God and how he works, how he created things. Somewhere along the line, the message got lost - science and religion, once the closest of allies, for some reason became at odds with one another.
Personally, I think we should embrace religion more, not because of a belief in God, but because of a belief in advancement. Religion asks the why. Science responds "let's find out!". It'd be a beautiful partnership.
But for some reason, the world seems to be shifting further away from religion. Religion is being used to justify sociopath behavior and war. Religious texts, which were written in heavy symbolism, are being taken literally by both science and religion alike. The meaning of religion and the potential of science and religion working symbiotically with one another is disappearing fast. To be honest, it's a shame.
Role, you're brilliant, I just want to make that clear. You understand what I've been telling people around me for years: The Bible was written for people of an age long past, and was written to suit their level of understanding. We can't be expected to take it literally any longer; we're much too smart now. Also, zman, the current theory is that quarks are composed entirely of energy at the most basic level; meaning all matter is just different amounts of concentrated energy. But that's just a theory.
Not quite. You misunderstand - the people back then weren't stupid, you know. Out of necessity, religious texts are written in symbolism, and that symbolism was taught to the people who followed the religion. It was a self defense mechanism, as religious persecution is a huge problem in the world. Was the world made in Seven Days? Of course not. Anyone who understands Judeo-Christian teachings will tell you that. Hell, the Big Bang theory is freaking Genesis for crying out loud! It was created by a catholic! Science scoffed at it, and mocked it - that's how we got the name "Big Bang". The scientific theory at the time was the Steady State theory.
But then the strangest thing happened. Science found evidence for a theory - it wasn't their theory - it was their rival theory, the big bang. While science did have some solid points behind their theory, they did the right thing and took the best parts from each theory and used them together. But Religion, for some stupid reason, decided "It's popular, now it sucks", and now advocate Creationism over the Big Bang, despite that the Big Bang is, well, the theory of creationism.
Why science and religion insist on being bitter enemies, I'll never really understand. They have so much potential if they'd just work together...
Oh, contraire, I never said they were stupid; but their level of understanding when the bible was written was not high enough to understand things in the way we do now. Had you started a conversation about something as simple as gravity back then, people would have... Well, I'm sure you get the idea. Now we are able to understand the symbols better than ever before, and yet people insist on claiming that it's not symbolism.
QuoteTo better understand God and how he works, how he created things.
How do we know that God is a he? God might be a she or an it. God might even have been the big bang.
Who knows?
QuoteSomewhere along the line, the message got lost - science and religion, once the closest of allies, for some reason became at odds with one another.
That's the thing with allies, friends or even siblings. They can grow distant towards each other, and even become each other's sworn enemy.
Quote from: Kioll on 22, November, 2011, 04:31:42 PM
Oh, contraire, I never said they were stupid; but their level of understanding when the bible was written was not high enough to understand things in the way we do now. Had you started a conversation about something as simple as gravity back then, people would have... Well, I'm sure you get the idea. Now we are able to understand the symbols better than ever before, and yet people insist on claiming that it's not symbolism.
Oh really? The Mayans had a better understanding of the stars than we did for many centuries, and they predated us by quite a bit. We have new discoveries all the time that show us that the people of the past had a lot more understanding than we give them credit for.
I argue that they undestood a lot of what we know today - that the knowledge was lost in things like the fire that hit the Library of Alexandria. Furthermore, they had different ways of expressing their knowledge that we are only just now beginning to understand and decipher. The ancient peoples were a lot more advanced than we originally thought. Those games where the ancients had amazing technology and understanding are not as much fantasy as we originally thought, they could very well be truth in television instead.
Never discount old cultures. The reason we don't understand may simply be a difference in culture - they could have been a culture that passed knowledge down verbally, while we are a far more visual culture. Why else would one of the biggest mysteries be our own past?
Eh, but you have to take in account location as well... Cultures with advanced understanding weren't everywhere. To boot, knowing more about certain things doesn't mean they knew more about everything. The bible's main role wasn't to guide our lives; it would be much more literal if it was. It was to guide our hearts. And somewhere along the way, that purpose was lost. The main point really isn't about why it was written that way, although I suppose you and I will each have our own ideas on that. The main point is that it WAS written that way, and the majority of the population refuses to admit it.
Aye, I won't argue there. It's a shame that the original intent of so many things has been forgotten now. Maybe that's why we know so little of our own past - because of previous periods like this where society goes out of their way to reject or ignore the past.
Knowledge and intelligence are two very different things, knowledge doesn't require you to understand anything. The people is and has always been guided by superstition, as only the belief that their actions changes the world they live in can bring them hope. The scientist who believes nothing can exist outside of that which is proven, disregards the very purpose of science. The supernatural cannot exist, as it would then by definition no longer be supernatural.
Ah, but I must counter - what is the Supernatural, what is Magic, except something which science has yet to explain? You know the saying that any form of science sufficient advanced is indistinguishable from magic, right? Well, there's those of us who honestly believe that, and hold hard to it, claiming:
What is magic, but a field of science we have yet to discover?
Science itself has even given a name to God. They call him "Singularity".
That's essentially what I was saying, that we don't know or understand something doesn't necessarily meant it doesn't exist. And anything that exists cannot be supernatural, simply because it exists. So my point and the logical conclusion is, if there is magic, there isn't. I mean, it's not like humans decide the laws of physics, we merely attempt to observe them from our narrow field of vision.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic... I believe it was Voltaire that said that, although I might be mistaken.
I guess magic can also be described as not understood, or not explainable by science.
So what do we learn from this?
Since sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic...
technology = magic
And in the Middle Ages, people could use magic.
So in the Middle Ages, there was advanced technology.
And that, my friends, is why robots look like knights.
Aye. It's when you take that to the logical extreme, Magic is but a field of science we have yet to discover or understand. All things can be explained through science, after all - that's what I believe. Even things like ghosts and the supernatural, or arcane magic and stuff.
I also believe that the reason people don't practice the magic of old is because the technology of now is more advanced. Who knows, maybe it is possible to cast a fireball spell... but it's faster to just shoot the guy.
Jiten, I never said it has been used for war. I said it's been corrupted and perverted to justify war, and that religious persecution has been a problem since the dawn of man. Don't just paraphrase in a way that lets you spin things.
Whenever someone uses religion as their reason for doing something like war or murder, its an excuse than a real reason. I don't think that any sort of creative being would condone the destruction of its creations by themselves. That's why I hate anti-Muslims who burn the Q'uran and want to kill or at least suppress Muslims just as much as groups like the Taliban and all that. And yes, they exist. I live amongst them.
Quote from: Charon the Ferryman on 22, November, 2011, 09:17:10 PM
Whenever someone uses religion as their reason for doing something like war or murder, its an excuse than a real reason. I don't think that any sort of creative being would condone the destruction of its creations by themselves. That's why I hate anti-Muslims who burn the Q'uran and want to kill or at least suppress Muslims just as much as groups like the Taliban and all that. And yes, they exist. I live amongst them.
This. So much this.
Quote from: Misery on 22, November, 2011, 05:47:51 PM
I guess magic can also be described as not understood, or not explainable by science.
So what do we learn from this?
Since sufficiently advanced technology is indistinquishable from magic...
technology = magic
And in the Middle Ages, people could use magic.
So in the Middle Ages, there was advanced technology.
And that, my friends, is why robots look like knights.
See: Leonardo da Vinci's Robot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo%27s_robot)
My addition to the discussion in regards that Religious theory seems to align strongly with scientific fact is a little history on atomic theory from the Greeks. When Greek philosophers began debating the nature of matter the reigning theory was that any element could be cut into infinitely tiny pieces that would still be the same element. When early Greek supporters of atomic theory proposed their idea they failed to explain how atoms bonded, and their ideas were dismissed under the reasoning that if it were true everything would fall apart as though it were made of sand. The philosopher Democritus came up with the idea that atoms had solid physical shapes that enabled mechanical bonds. Iron atoms had hooks so they could form strong bonds, water atoms were smooth balls that could glide around each other, air took on a light wispy shape, there were even flexible materials made up of atoms with ball & socket joints.
The Greeks had no means to test their theory, it was nothing more than a lucky guess which was only partially correct. Although it made for a good theory back when there were no ways to solidly prove anything one way or the other, clinging to the belief that atoms are solid shapes with hooks, or ball & socket joints would be more than a little silly these days.
well i see that this topic has gone... everywhere... so if possible I will find a bunch if the latest news on different things. like dark matter, strange matter, cerns new time travel discovery, anti matter, black holes, white holes, and the universe's shape.