If you believe in God, refute this! - Page 79

Created

Last reply

Replies

1.1k

Views

60.3k

Users

37

Likes

762

Frequent Posters

K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
By the way, call me a conspiracy theorist, but "fixing" the speed of light and not letting anything else be faster, is the meanest/cruelest/most-obvious trick the designer/creator/simulator could have pulled on us (if a designer/creator/simulator indeed exists).

At the same time, at the quantum level, the designer/creator/simulator has easy access to information via entanglement (if a designer/creator/simulator indeed exists)

Mission accomplished!
CuckooCutter7 thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.



Well, I don't need to tell you this but just as a background: speed of light is finite even if it is the fastest in the universe. When we see very distant objects, we are in fact looking back in time. When we look at the Sun, we are looking at Sun as it existed 8 minutes ago. I know you know all this.

So if I travel at the speed of light, and if I am an observer located on an object 1 light year away from the earth, I could potentially look at what happened on earth an year ago. If I am an observer and I can travel faster than light, then, theoretically, I could start observing as well as replaying events that occurred on the earth in the past. All I have to do is "jump" to different locations in space to observe what is happening on earth and/or what happened on earth up until now. I could see how life evolved on earth as well as replay events during evolution by being faster than light and traveling to "appropriate" locations in space. That is pretty much the same as time traveling but like I said we could only observe the past, not interact with past.


yes, but there is no time dimension in nature IMO so how can time travel make sense even from a theoretical sense.Again, spacetime is just a historical collection of 3D objects. Nothing can move in it.
K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

yes, but there is no time dimension in nature IMO so how can time travel make sense even from a theoretical sense.Again, spacetime is just a historical collection of 3D objects. Nothing can move in it.



On the contrary, *everything* in it is moving. No? Because there is no absolute frame of reference?

What am I missing in your question?
CuckooCutter7 thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.



On the contrary, *everything* in it is moving. No? Because there is no absolute frame of reference?

What am I missing in your question?


when people talk of time travel, they are talking about actually being able to go back to the past. At any point in "space", all we have is an ever-changing present. There's no arrow of time. Because time cannot change.

One guy on the net put it like this-

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.

and someone else-

I think the reason so many latch onto an "arrow of time" is because of the human mind. We store memories and information in our brains, and so we have a "past" that exists in our heads. All our lives we have this mental function and never question it, and because of this, it's easy to envision that the past is actually "alive" and a co-existing plane of existence of some sort. The concepts of past and future become so engrained in our worldviews that we can't separate ourselves from it. Sci-fi also aids in this.
K.Universe. thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

when people talk of time travel, they are talking about actually being able to go back to the past. At any point in "space", all we have is an ever-changing present. There's no arrow of time. Because time cannot change.



Well, I was talking about time travel in the macroscopic sense. At the quantum level, yes, there is no arrow of time (doesn't appear to be there probably because our observations are limited by the speed of light)

The "present" you mentioned depends on the reference frame. Now is a good time to brush up on special relativity, CC :)


Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

One guy on the net put it like this-

What has been has indeed objectively been and is no more. What will be, objectively is not and has not been (and, in fact, is not even fully determined, according to quantum indeterminacy). All physical systems ride the universal wave of becoming. Any awareness (ours or that of other intelligences) of past and future reflects the objective wave of becoming. There is no problem of "the arrow of time." There simply is no arrow of time, as if time could go one "way" rather than another. That metaphor is an unfortunate result of spatializing time. The picture of time as a line along which one might travel in one direction or the other is a conceptual disaster. Time is becoming. Becoming is change. The undoing of a change is also a change. There is no "unbecoming.



That's bath salts talking.


Edited by K.Universe. - 11 years ago
CuckooCutter7 thumbnail
Anniversary 11 Thumbnail Group Promotion 4 Thumbnail Visit Streak 30 0 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.



Well, I was talking about time travel in the macroscopic sense. At the quantum level, yes, there is no arrow of time (doesn't appear to be there probably because our observations are limited by the speed of light)

The "present" you mentioned depends on the reference frame. Now is a good time to brush up on special relativity, CC :)




That's bath salts talking.



again, there's a lot of commonly accepted "truths" in science that no one dares to challenge. SR is just a mathematical trick. Based on it, one should be able to travel back in time. BUT, if time travel were possible, then we cant have "passage of time". It would mean the past exists, but if the past is "alive", then time is at a standstill. Hope you get the idea.

but sure, i'll read up some more on SR. Meanwhile, how does one travel through time? And a simple question- what would be the velocity of that object projected in your "time dimension"? Buddy, we cant have a dimensional number to something like time divided by time, so how can we have an answer that should be in units per time?

Think of time as just an attribute of an object with "past" and "future". Just states. That might make more sense to you then.
Edited by BirdieNumNum - 11 years ago
Vintage.Wine thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

@ FreethinkaHahahahahahaha πŸ˜†

Let me first congratulate ya for something ..You have predicted the Age of the Universe ...The exact day of it's destruction = The Dooms day
...πŸ‘ πŸ€— πŸ₯³...And I ll tell ya how ...

You have stated the following : A Electron's age is 10^26 years ...Good nuff ...Now considering that everything in the Universe is made of Electrons ... ( the Universe must end when that period of 10^26 Or whatever ) years lapses ....So that's the end of the universe ..Further electrons as in energy particles can't be created ..( If they can ..then the question would be Who crates em and how ? πŸ˜† ) πŸ˜† Please accept a bouquet of flowers from me as a token of respect. πŸ˜†

Your above comment means the the total electrons in the Universe ( Which are energy particles ) don't remain constant ...So if they decay / get destroyed how does a body that is made of electrons ( Including the body tissues ) decay even before that time period of 10^26 years ? The body must not decay before such stipulated time period. πŸ˜›

You asserted that the Electrons Decay .. Now what's decaying ? Its disintegrating / Shrinking ...So when Electrons Decay ..they disintegrate and become smaller particles and thus the energy is conserved ....So You mean that the particles smaller than the Electrons exist. While Physics says Electrons is the lightest / smallest ever particle. ..And it has no structure ..It is not made of other smaller particles ...So DECAY can't happen ..

That leaves us with only two possibilities ..A. Sudden destruction of the electrons as the body dies ... << Which sounds nothing short of hilarious ..Cause we can see the body ..It doesn't vanish upon death ...

B. Electrons get absorbed ..by some other object / body ( If they don't become photons .) which sounds much probable .. That's what I base my contentions on ..They get absorbed in a process unknown and remain constant in number ..



Now to another point ..Now you too have agreed to have seen a chicken that moves even after its head is chopped off ..That movement is defo not the reflex action ..Now please give me the answer as promised ..what causes the headless body to move ...I expect the answer before the dooms day πŸ˜† ..Cause my argument is ..The Soul in the body ..which is the energy causes such movements until it the last bit of it has moved outta that ...And the actions relate to will .The will to live ..not to die ..Its not a mechanical process ..When the energy has totally left the body .the body stops moving .. πŸ˜†

Another point : Consciousness can be sensed / observed ...The electrons too can be observed by physics laboratory procedures ...So whats the point ? I refer to that consciousness as the SOUL ..Or SOUL induced feeling ...You ask me to show ya the consciousness ...So I would argue that ..You show me the Electron ..and I ll show ya the Consciousness πŸ˜†


Moreover I had said ..Electrons too might have SOUL in them ..as the basic energy ..MIGHT << I was only surmising here ..I used the Electrons as an analogy to portray an image of the soul / It's possible behavior here ... Soul I believe behaves much like the electrons ..It doesn't decay ..or get destroyed ..It just changes the body ...Human Body and other animals who have legs are the bodies that can move ..Trees can't πŸ˜† << But that doesn't mean Trees are dead .. Trees too ..Computers can't move either ..but the difference is they don't have consciousness ..Trees do .Their leaves breathe ..and there are flowers that contract as one tries to touch em .. So please don't associate the SOUL only with the Human body ..It can exist in N number of other objects ..πŸ˜›


Coming to Black Holes ..They can't always be separated from the Stars as collapse of a non Rotating Star ..engenders a Black hole...Of course the Schwarzschilds radius ..I mention that in pn of my earlier posts that Black holes are inside their Even Horizon ..Which is why they always keep expanding gulping in all the material that enters their gravitational field.. The TIME TOO slows down ..when the objects are near it's horizon ..Thus they disappear ...The TIME there moves slower or even Halts as compared to the Time on earth ... Non Rotating black holes have Infinite Volume ..They can absorb the entire universe and still infinite space would be left inside them to absorb more ..Also consider the motion of the particles both inside and outside the Event Horizon especially in the
ergosphere where no object can remain Stationary or Stable ..while the opposite is true inside that ...πŸ˜›

Also why can't we choose to call an unknown something with a known name? Scientists and astrologists do that all the time ...They observe the minute difference in the electromagnetic radiation field of a star that is millions of light years away ..and consider that is caused by a planet orbiting that ..And they name that planet .. and predict the possibility of life on that .cause it is placed at a similar distance from a star which has same luminosity as the SUN ..And after many years they find a phenomena relating to some cosmic interference like the solar winds or a comet that musta passed by that and strike off all earlier possibilities ..including the Name Criteria πŸ˜† ..Be candid ..and let everyone decide what to call something unless a Universal convention is in place .. πŸ˜›

Phew !

Vintu ☺️

Vintage.Wine thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: K.Universe.

I am sorry for not understanding the context of "electron decay" but could Freethinker or V.W please walk me through it?



Well ..Freethinka is of the opinion that the Body tissues decay ..And so do the Electrons before their estimated life span of 10^26 years as a person dies ..Thus making the body shrink / disintegrate ..So by DECAY he means electrons reduce to even smaller particles ..while they are the smallest / lightest known particles .. ..The context is .Why does a body decay upon the death .If it is made of electrons ( and has no other Vital element in it ) that can't disintegrate ..unless they move outta the body and get absorbed into another ..Or other such procedure that helps them relinquish the body ..πŸ˜† ..
Freethinker112 thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 6 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago
I have already edited my post stating that I was wrong. I got misinformed due to the way Wikipedia writes its articles. It said that the half life of electron is 10^26 years, which I thought meant that they may decay after that. But on further reading after being corrected by Vintage, I say now that electrons can't decay.
Vintage.Wine thumbnail
Anniversary 12 Thumbnail Group Promotion 3 Thumbnail
Posted: 11 years ago

Originally posted by: Freethinker112

I have already edited my post stating that I was wrong. I got misinformed due to the way Wikipedia writes its articles. It said that the half life of electron is 10^26 years, which I thought meant that they may decay after that. But on further reading after being corrected by Vintage, I say now that electrons can't decay.



Oh! Never mind mate πŸ€— .. After all we ain't no scientists ..Just yet πŸ˜† ..And we ain't the GOD either .So there is always a scope for errors and correction ..Do consider my other points and answer them .. πŸ˜›

Vintustein πŸ˜›

^^^^^^^^^^^
( No It ain't the portmanteau ..Vintu + Einstein ...πŸ˜† ..Its Vintu + Stein <<<< πŸ˜† )

Top