By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Does this not justify belief in a God...

JakDaSnack on 06 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
Roma said:

as for the universe having always existed is impossible as we know that it is expanding thus it had a starting point. plus the rules that nothing comes out of nothing in our universe would make the universe having to create itself without it being there in the first place and with nothing I mean zero even the things we don't see. that's like a mother giving birth to her self without existing to create her self (head explodes). lol

Correct. The Universe had a finite starting point.

Incorrect that something cannot come from nothing. It can indeed happen. That isn't to say that it DID happen. No, no one is saying that...only that is is plausible. It offers one possible explanation, which is much more than we had before.

The reason we can say that it is plausible for the Universe from "nothing" is because the sum total energy of the Universe can be described as 0. Thus, mathematically, it is completely reasonable to get something (0) from nothing (0). 

If you throw a shotput in the air, at some point in the air it will completely stop and thus is sum total energy will be 0, but guess what, it's not nothing.  And while the Universe has a total sum energy of 0, it still isn't "nothing."

Wrong. A shotput is still a shotput regardless of its position.

Matter (the shotput) IS energy. At no point does the energy of the shotput hit 0, because matter is simply energy and energy is nothing more than the probability of partial wave-form collapse. 

hmmm, let me ask you something, what is the method you are referring to in determining that the total sum energy is 0?  I should probably have asked that before I referenced the shotput.



Something...Something...Games...Something

Around the Network
Lafiel on 06 May 2013
JakDaSnack said:

If you throw a shotput in the air, at some point in the air it will completely stop and thus is sum total energy will be 0, but guess what, it's not nothing.  And while the Universe has a total sum energy of 0, it still isn't "nothing."

no, only the sum of the _kinetic_ energy is 0 (in this framework - ofcouse if it's on earth it still has various different kinectic energies, like the earth self-rotation, the earth rotating around the sun, the solar system rotating around the inner milky way and the milky way moving into a direction and so on) , it still has latent energy in it's own matter

what dsgrue said is that all forms of energy in the universe together equal to a sum of 0 - something I personally am not sure about, but the possibility is there



dsgrue3 on 06 May 2013
JakDaSnack said:

hmmm, let me ask you something, what is the method you are referring to in determining that the total sum energy is 0?  I should probably have asked that before I referenced the shotput.

"Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero. How can this be? When you include the effects of gravity, energy comes in two forms. Mass corresponds to positive energy, but the gravitational attraction between massive objects can correspond to negative energy. If the positive energy and the negative gravitational energy of the universe cancel out, we end up in a flat universe.

Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html



JakDaSnack on 06 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

hmmm, let me ask you something, what is the method you are referring to in determining that the total sum energy is 0?  I should probably have asked that before I referenced the shotput.

 

"Because if you add up the total energy of a flat universe, the result is precisely zero. How can this be? When you include the effects of gravity, energy comes in two forms. Mass corresponds to positive energy, but the gravitational attraction between massive objects can correspond to negative energy. If the positive energy and the negative gravitational energy of the universe cancel out, we end up in a flat universe.

Think about it: If our universe arose spontaneously from nothing at all, one might predict that its total energy should be zero. And when we measure the total energy of the universe, which could have been anything, the answer turns out to be the only one consistent with this possibility."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html

 

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.



Something...Something...Games...Something

dsgrue3 on 06 May 2013
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 



Around the Network
JakDaSnack on 06 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 

lol, Krauss' theory has already been disproven, but ok.



Something...Something...Games...Something

dsgrue3 on 06 May 2013
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 

lol, Krauss' theory has already been disproven, but ok.

Source?

EDIT: Back to the aforementioned link, graviational energy would be the negative to all matter, not zero.



JakDaSnack on 06 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 

lol, Krauss' theory has already been disproven, but ok.

Source?

EDIT: Back to the aforementioned link, graviational energy would be the negative to all matter, not zero.

Why do I need a source, his definition of nothing isn't actually nothing.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nothing



Something...Something...Games...Something

dsgrue3 on 06 May 2013
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 

lol, Krauss' theory has already been disproven, but ok.

Source?

EDIT: Back to the aforementioned link, graviational energy would be the negative to all matter, not zero.

Why do I need a source, his definition of nothing isn't actually nothing.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nothing

This is what happens when you attempt to teach something to people devoted to nescience. And people wonder why I get upset.

See ya, kiddo.



JakDaSnack on 06 May 2013
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:
dsgrue3 said:
JakDaSnack said:

That's where I thought you got it from, and though I gave a horrible shotput example, the universe wouldn't be nothing if the newtonian gravitational energy is zero, it would still contain enormous amount of dark matter, stars, planets, dust etc.  In other words, the universe wouldn't reduce to nothing.

Newtonian gravity is classical physics. You are about a decade behind and I implore you to continue reading about quantum physics which will replace classical gravity with its own derivation when possible. 

I think I will trust the physicists on this one, but if you disagree their work is available. Good luck disproving them. 

lol, Krauss' theory has already been disproven, but ok.

Source?

EDIT: Back to the aforementioned link, graviational energy would be the negative to all matter, not zero.

Why do I need a source, his definition of nothing isn't actually nothing.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nothing

This is what happens when you attempt to teach something to people devoted to nescience. And people wonder why I get upset.

See ya, kiddo 

name calling lol, good thing this argument is over, I hate dealing with people as immature as you.



Something...Something...Games...Something