Your Theory of Creation - Life, The Universe & Everythin

[Invidious]

Wait...

 

 

 

How does time collapse, it is just an abstraction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The General Theory of Relativity

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Einstine has shown us through his General Theory of Relativity that Time and Space are so closely related that they canoot exist without eachother yes?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re correct there. The difference is we now consider events to be described as (x,y,z,t) on the Cartesian plane rather then how we used to describe an event as (x,y,z). It is really a common sense addition to us rather then anything mind-blowing. If a big crunch happens all that will occur is that the universe will shrink as time moves forward in all positions and directions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t quite understand your reasoning for why space will cease to exist. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s say the universe collapses, all matter will collapse into a single point and the matter will be so heavy that it will not be able to support itself and will form a black hole. When the universe shrinks down to a radius less then the Schwarzschild radius, the black hole will be unable to produce radiation and get smaller. At this point I would consider the universe to be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâstaticÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and hence undeterminable from one point in time to the next, every event will be exactly the same. However this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean time stops, it just means one moment in time is indistinguishable from the next. This event will occur in the last few moments of the universe so I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see how this is relevant to anything. So how would space go missing after this point?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

While it is true that Modern studies show this I personally(Along with my Phys professor) believe that we are saying that too early. There are simply too many undefined variables and un-discovered factors when trying to say something for sure in that area of science. I believe that the reason the Universe is currently expanding at a increasing rate is because of how young it is in itself. Studies conducted through breakthroughs made by the Hubble have shown us that the Universe cannot be more than 15 billion solar years old... That is quite young. The reason it is still expanding at a accelerating rate is comparable to watching a rubber ball bounce up and down. We are still dropping towards the ground. When we collide we will start to decellerate towards the inevitable Big Crunch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(As an aside, you do physics (at a university level?)?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s assume that universe is too young; it still doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why the universe is accelerating. It appears that there is some gravitational repulsion constant that causes the universe to expand. To counteract that there is a gravitational constant (mass) that causes the universe to contract. If there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t enough mass in the universe to counteract the repulsion then there will always be a net force causing the universe to expand. These net forces are what cause acceleration, the acceleration we see in the universe. The universe expands independent of time, if the is more repulsion then attractions then there will always be a net repulsion simple.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ways for this to change if the repulsion constant changes dynamically (which could be caused by things like friction if the universe sits inside some sort of non-Newtonian fluid), however since the universe is accelerating I would rule that out any decrease in the gravitational repulsion constant (it could also mean the constant is increasing).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your example of the bouncing ball doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t compare to our model of the universe. The biggest blunder (any physicist could quickly pick this out) you made is that the ball isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t always accelerating like the universe. The ball will always be decelerating at 9.8m/s if velocity is pointing radially outwards and similarly the ball will always be accelerating 9.8m/s if the velocity is pointing radially inwards.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The added complexity of a roof (and also the ground if you like) does nothing to change the above fact. The only property the roof/ground has on the ball is that it causes the ballÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s velocity to change in the opposite direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you might think your example is good because, hey you throw at ball and it comes back, however that does not explain what is actually happening in the universe. A proper example involving throwing a ball would be this:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅYou throw a ball at 10m/s, after every second you grab and throw the ball a further 10m/s. This means that after every second there will be a net force of 0.2m/s away from Earth (since all the gravity of earth will counteract your throw 9.8m/s), slowly the 0.2m/s will add up and hence you get an accelerating ball (at 0.2m/s). Not even all the mass on Earth can stop this ball from picking up speed and escaping out into deep space.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

It does. As Hawkings explained Black-Holes... "They are a point of infinite gravity where time-space itself is collapsed into singularity".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black holes are not a point of infinite gravity; if they were we would all be sucked into one, as you can see this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t happen. A black hole has the exact same mass/gravity as normal objects. If the Earth turned into a black hole it would still have the gravity of 9.8m/s, the moon will orbit ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâblack hole EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as if nothing happened.

[Invidious]

At this point I would consider the universe to be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâstaticÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ and hence undeterminable from one point in time to the next, every event will be exactly the same. However this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean time stops, it just means one moment in time is indistinguishable from the next.

 

 

 

I stand corrected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These net forces are what cause acceleration

 

 

 

(As an aside I meant highschool professor. I went to a private highschool)

 

 

 

Exactly! That is exactly what I am talking about when I mention that there are too many undiscovered variables! The net forces at this point in science are not completely determined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only ways for this to change if the repulsion constant changes dynamically

 

 

 

How about gravity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you might think your example is good because, hey you throw at ball and it comes back, however that does not explain what is actually happening in the universe. A proper example involving throwing a ball would be this:

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅYou throw a ball at 10m/s, after every second you grab and throw the ball a further 10m/s. This means that after every second there will be a net force of 0.2m/s away from Earth (since all the gravity of earth will counteract your throw 9.8m/s), slowly the 0.2m/s will add up and hence you get an accelerating ball (at 0.2m/s). Not even all the mass on Earth can stop this ball from picking up speed and escaping out into deep space.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Invidious]

 

 

 

 

It does. As Hawkings explained Black-Holes... "They are a point of infinite gravity where time-space itself is collapsed into singularity".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black holes are not a point of infinite gravity; if they were we would all be sucked into one, as you can see this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t happen. A black hole has the exact same mass/gravity as normal objects. If the Earth turned into a black hole it would still have the gravity of 9.8m/s, the moon will orbit ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâblack hole EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as if nothing happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawkings specifically used the word infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the Earth into a black hole? Not possible...

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

Exactly! That is exactly what I am talking about when I mention that there are too many undiscovered variables! The net forces at this point in science are not completely determined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well the current idea is that dark energy causeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s repulsion. Dark energy is just a fancy name for energy in space; if space has energy then it also has negative pressure since pressure is negatively proportional to energy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretend you have some tennis balls bouncing around inside a box, as they bounce around the box they push against the walls. If it wasn't for the box being inflexible it would expand. The more energetic the ball the harder it pushes, the more balls the more they will hit against the wall.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How about gravity?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If gravity is a variable then it would produce a pretty unstable universe, life probably wouldn't be able to exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was referring to a rubber ball dropping towards the ground. The gravity of the Earth would accelerate the speed of the ball until it hits the wall. When it hits the wall it would quickly rebound(The analogy breaks down from here as the bal bouncing back up should be accelerating with the shrinking of the universe as it grows "smaller"). Likewise a universe would expand at a accelerating rarte due to the energy of the explosion. When the "walls" of the universe reach a point where the energy cannot support itself it will rebound.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure you can drop a ball and watch it bounce up and down forever (if you didn't have things like air resistance) but that begs the question; who dropped the ball, why and how. However like I said, it doesn't really fit observation a collapsing universe would be accelerating inwards, not out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

True. We have not detected the Gamma rays produced by anti-matter/matter collsions but you have to take into account that they were both blasted in opposite directions in the Big Bang. Perhaps only when the Big Crunch begins we will see the first Annhilations.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing to suggest that there were two clumps of matter and anti matter that got blasted apart. How did the matter and anti matter separate itself in the first place and what explosion forced them in opposite directions? Current theory suggests that there was more matter then anti matter, and this extra matter is what you see today; not that there are equal amounts but they were thrown far away from each other.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there were equal amounts of antimatter and matter then the universe should be in thermal equilibrium. Matter-Antimatter pairs would get destroyed, turned into gamma rays, and then bump nearby gamma rays (from other destroyed pairs) which creates another pair of particles; starting the whole cycle again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawkings specifically used the word infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the Earth into a black hole? Not possible...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think I misunderstood you, as you approach the singularity you approach infinite gravitational pull. That's kind of the whole point of a black hole; the strong nuclear force (which pushes protons and neutrons away if they get too close together, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why they form an atom instead of gravity slowly pulling them to a single point) is overcome by gravity. However the further away you are from the black hole (or any other object) the weaker it is, that's why we don't get pulled in by them, and we are too far away to be affected by them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now this comes back to the whole concept of infinity: If you believe that space is quantised (there is a minimum length of space one has to move, to get from (x,y,z) to (x+1,y+1,z+1)) then the black hole will collapse down to this minimum length since it can't get any smaller. At this point in space it has a finite mass and hence finite gravity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe space is quantised then matter in the black hole will get squeezed smaller and smaller (forever) and it will take an infinite amount of time to reach the singularity (since it continually gets smaller). Hence you won't ever reach infinite gravity but you will approach it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also it is possible for Earth to become a black hole, if you squeeze Earth into a radius of 9mm (good luck with that) it will be technically a black hole. Every object can be squeezed into a black hole, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how people can talk about making black holes in particle accelerators (the atoms as they collide get squeezed down to a point where they are classed black holes).

[Invidious]

Well the current idea

 

 

 

Meh...

 

 

 

All I know is old-text-book education and a few releases from SETI and ORIGIN... So I have no idea at all what the current theory is...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If gravity is a variable then it would produce a pretty unstable universe, life probably wouldn't be able to exist.

 

 

 

I meant to say Gravity/Energy are most probably ALL variables. That way when considering the expansion rate it would not be erratic at all but steady as the one we have now. I also do not see how the effect gravity has on the Universal Pull would effect life. The only thing I see that would leave the universe as a big void of dust would be a change in a few atomic weights rendering mag/grav pull negative on them(Here is where you reach the edge of my education...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is nothing to suggest that there were two clumps of matter and anti matter that got blasted apart. How did the matter and anti matter separate itself in the first place and what explosion forced them in opposite directions? Current theory suggests that there was more matter then anti matter, and this extra matter is what you see today; not that there are equal amounts but they were thrown far away from each other.

 

 

 

Ever read on Paul Dirac?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there were equal amounts of antimatter and matter then the universe should be in thermal equilibrium. Matter-Antimatter pairs would get destroyed, turned into gamma rays, and then bump nearby gamma rays (from other destroyed pairs) which creates another pair of particles; starting the whole cycle again.

 

 

 

As I have said... There are no Gamma ray emmisions that have been detected. Therefore no collisions(yet).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe space is quantised then matter in the black hole will get squeezed smaller and smaller (forever) and it will take an infinite amount of time to reach the singularity (since it continually gets smaller). Hence you won't ever reach infinite gravity but you will approach it.

 

 

 

Notice that I have said nothing to the contrary of this? I agree with you on that point as I have also learned this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also it is possible for Earth to become a black hole, if you squeeze Earth into a radius of 9mm (good luck with that) it will be technically a black hole.

 

 

 

Ahhhh... But it is not possible to do that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every object can be squeezed into a black hole, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s how people can talk about making black holes in particle accelerators (the atoms as they collide get squeezed down to a point where they are classed black holes).

 

 

 

Yes, I have also heard of this as well. CERN recently succeeded in creating "mini-black holes" didn't they?

[Hannibal]

You know what I think is perfect irony here? The more theories people come up with on how Dark Matter influences the universe, and how many Big Bangs/Small Crunches we've had, the more fuzzy it becomes, and the less science it really is. Using a book dear mr. Hawkings wrote as evidence for a physics theory is preposterous. Universal Pull? Matter, Anti-Matter, Dark Matter? Putting earth into a Black Hole?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me this all sounds way too much like Aristotle waving his hands and saying everything falls because it wants to move to its rightful resting place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm also very much amused by someone saying this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is a fair bit of evidence for dark matter (otherwise we need to refine existing theories).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, so basically we either need to believe in something we don't fully understand yet (we just do random experiments and say: "Look, that's it!") or face that our theories may not be 100% correct.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fun thing is that scientists never want to take the second option until it is too late. Right now the field of Physics is off to such ridiculous depths that there are more contradictions in it than there are solutions (judging from above debate, where even the people who allegedly think they know what they are talking about disagree), which is of course quite an achievement in itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd also say that explaining something by saying "Oh, that's Dark Matter. I don't really know how it works, but it's really there, even though you can't see it!" sounds like someone saying: "Oh, that's God playing tricks on you - He's there, even though you can't really see Him!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some physicists apparently have a hard time noticing two things (which have been known since Popper and probably before that still):

 

 

 

• 
   
   
   
  [*:33mk8zr1]Science will not get you closer to the ultimate thruth.
   
   
   
  [*:33mk8zr1]Just because the current theory is X, that doesn't mean that the correct theory is X too.

[Invidious]

Aristotle waving his hands and saying everything falls because it wants to move to its rightful resting place.

 

 

 

I don't remember anything that says he said that... Anyhow... Science is constantly changing, that is what makes it so exciting!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

face that our theories may not be 100% correct.

 

 

 

Again, current science is on the edge of development. Theories come and go while others stay. How exciting is that! What you research and do may actually be the next Theory!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

there are more contradictions in it than there are solutions

 

 

 

Again... Qualities such as those are what makes science so exciting! Do you want to study a field that has been researched to its extent so far and thoroughly that there will be nothing more to add to that? Do you REALLY want to know WHY once and for all? Perhaps you would like modern society caught in another Golden Age Syndrome? Is that what you REALLY want?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

where even the people who allegedly think they know what they are talking about disagree

 

 

 

Have you not heard of journals and debates? Science is NOT a exact field. The day it becomes one (if it ever will become one...) will be a sad day indeed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Oh, that's God playing tricks on you - He's there, even though you can't really see Him!"

 

 

 

That is science!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Oh, that's Dark Matter. I don't really know how it works, but it's really there, even though you can't see it!"

 

 

 

Bad anology...

 

 

 

Dark Matter was a theory contrived to explain such problems as the Dwarf Galaxy Paradox and the Galactic Rotational Problem. They explain such problems in a most simple manner. There is also evidence of Dark Matter in the gavitational anomalies that we detect all the time. Why is it that certain stars are moving towards an area of less visible mass/gravity? Because there is a unseen form of Matter that has gravitational pull larger than the other areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Popper

 

 

 

Some physicist perhaps? Elaborate please.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science will not get you closer to the ultimate thruth.

 

 

 

Then God will? Science gives us the means to explain the "miracles" and re-create them for the benefit(sometimes not benefit...) of Man Kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because the current theory is X, that doesn't mean that the correct theory is X too.

 

 

 

That is why science is constantly changing. Not just physics either. I remember learning Basic Pyschology and Reactions just to learn that the very next month the whole world started to claim it was wrong.

[insane]

Then God will? Science gives us the means to explain the "miracles" and re-create them for the benefit(sometimes not benefit...) of Man Kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science may give you scientific answers but it by no means improve people. Maybe their circumstances, but science can't do anything about people themselves.

[Invidious]

I have heard this many times from many different mouths. Every time I hear it I think on it... I am also forced to agree on the theoretical level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However I tend to disagree when it is actually plugged into the real world... Take a look at what Humanity has done it itself in the name of religion... The Crusades... The massacres... The suicide bombings... Human Nature itself is corrupt. It will always be corrupt. And als long as it is corrupt(forever) religion will always be exploited by others.

[Mercifull]

 

Then God will? Science gives us the means to explain the "miracles" and re-create them for the benefit(sometimes not benefit...) of Man Kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science may give you scientific answers but it by no means improve people. Maybe their circumstances, but science can't do anything about people themselves.

While there may not be a scientific formula for "improving people" religion certainly isnt the only way.

[insane]

 

 

Then God will? Science gives us the means to explain the "miracles" and re-create them for the benefit(sometimes not benefit...) of Man Kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science may give you scientific answers but it by no means improve people. Maybe their circumstances, but science can't do anything about people themselves.

While there may not be a scientific formula for "improving people" religion certainly isnt the only way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did I say religion in my post? It was a post against science being the end-all of any question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However I tend to disagree when it is actually plugged into the real world... Take a look at what Humanity has done it itself in the name of religion... The Crusades... The massacres... The suicide bombings... Human Nature itself is corrupt. It will always be corrupt. And als long as it is corrupt(forever) religion will always be exploited by others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did I say religion in my post? It was a post against science being the end-all of any question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BUT even if I DID say that religion improves people, taking a few examples are *not* going to prove that religion in general does not help people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When a plane crashes, do you blame aerodynamics? No, you blame the application of aerodynamics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Same with religion - when people do stupid things, do you blame religion? You shouldn't, you should blame the people with the bad applications of religion.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

 

 

It does. As Hawkings explained Black-Holes... "They are a point of infinite gravity where time-space itself is collapsed into singularity".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Black holes are not a point of infinite gravity; if they were we would all be sucked into one, as you can see this doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t happen. A black hole has the exact same mass/gravity as normal objects. If the Earth turned into a black hole it would still have the gravity of 9.8m/s, the moon will orbit ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâblack hole EarthÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ as if nothing happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawkings specifically used the word infinite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the Earth into a black hole? Not possible...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The closest I've heard they are infinite points, there is no limit to their mass. Infinite gravity would have the whole universe pulled in the moment the first one formed.

[HugATree]

the big bang theory did never happened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

just by an enormous ''bang'' the whole world, with ppl on it,

 

 

 

animals, on land, in the sea, all the plants, the sun, and lots more suddenly existed?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:roll: What does this have to do with the big bang?

 

 

 

This is something Kent Hovind would say and proclaim its evolution.

[jackv5]

black holes are what remains from dead stars, our sun is too small to form into a black hole. A black hole is a place of immense gravity, some scientists believe black holes destories anything that comes into contact with it and some believes it leads to another deminsion. We do not know much about black holes because of how far they are... the closest one is around 2000light years away. I dont know why i just said wat i said... seeing this thread is on creationism =\

[jackv5]

creationism is NOT how the world became what it is today. Creationism is a psuedoscience, there is no experiment that could prove it right. I'll add more to my post later...

[Astralinre]

creationism is NOT how the world became what it is today. Creationism is a psuedoscience, there is no experiment that could prove it right. I'll add more to my post later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So science is the only thing that can explain the past, and anything that is non-scientific cannot? Is creationism wrong simply because it is not science?

[killkill1234]

creationism is NOT how the world became what it is today. Creationism is a psuedoscience, there is no experiment that could prove it right. I'll add more to my post later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And how do you prove the Big Bang and Evolution? Both are impossible to prove in an experiment. You can only look at the evidence and extrapolate.

[Mercifull]

Whereas creationism/ID isnt even a theory lol

[Astralinre]

Whereas creationism/ID isnt even a theory lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When did he mention either of those?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I'm assuming that was addressed to killkill.)

[Death_By_Pod]

 

creationism is NOT how the world became what it is today. Creationism is a psuedoscience, there is no experiment that could prove it right. I'll add more to my post later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So science is the only thing that can explain the past, and anything that is non-scientific cannot? Is creationism wrong simply because it is not science?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, because the past is naturalistic and science by definition is the explanation of naturalistic phenomena. It's like comparing apples to oranges, religion deals with the supernatural and science deals with the natural.

[Invidious]

religion deals with the supernatural

 

 

 

Religion was first derived to explain natrual phenomona.

[Death_By_Pod]

You know what I think is perfect irony here? The more theories people come up with on how Dark Matter influences the universe, and how many Big Bangs/Small Crunches we've had, the more fuzzy it becomes, and the less science it really is. Using a book dear mr. Hawkings wrote as evidence for a physics theory is preposterous. Universal Pull? Matter, Anti-Matter, Dark Matter? Putting earth into a Black Hole?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What, we canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a simplified discussion (universal pull isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a technical term) and talk about mind experiments (like what do you call a black hole, if you compressed Earth small enough eventually it would have to be called a black hole)? A lot of the things that have been discussed are theoretical and donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t match observation (like big crunches and turning Earth into a black hole).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand terms like antimatter and dark energy doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean its science fiction and a gimmick. Negative numbers, irrational numbers, fractions and complex numbers make mathematics fuzzy; letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stick with positive whole numbers ok.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To me this all sounds way too much like Aristotle waving his hands and saying everything falls because it wants to move to its rightful resting place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things do move to their rightful resting place, Aristotle didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain why or how they move to their resting place, I doubt he could explain why the moon orbits the Earth instead of falling to the ground like everything else. An Aristotle equivalent statement would be ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åthe universe expands at its rightful speed,ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[neogeo0823]

ok, i know exactly how the universe began and im going to describe it to you in as great a level of detail as i can.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ok, first you take a bath tub made of the darkest ebony. but the bath is conical. just bear with me here. its a conical bath. now you take that bath, and fill it with white sand, or sugar or something like that and you pull the plug out of the bath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

now heres the brilliant part. you film the sand as it drains out of the bath, ok? and then, you play it back in reverse, so that it looks like the sand is coming up from the plug and filling the bath.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

well, thats not exactly how the universe began, but its a great way to relax!