Why I don't believe in God

[BreezeWood]

.

You're talking a bunch of gobbledy-goop. There is no loop, there is no angular trajectory.

gobbledy-goop, sorry boosy it's Easter not Thanksgiving ...


because all the matter returns to its origin in motion crushing itself together everything turns to energy and at reflection explodes again outwardly, the state of purity is accomplished - the same each individual Spirit must accomplish, purity, to separate from their physiology to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting.

among all your other errors of thought boosy such as your entire last post in particular the Boomerang theory is mathematically / physics sound.

.

 

[Boss]

.

You're talking a bunch of gobbledy-goop. There is no loop, there is no angular trajectory.

gobbledy-goop, sorry boosy it's Easter not Thanksgiving ...


because all the matter returns to its origin in motion crushing itself together everything turns to energy and at reflection explodes again outwardly, the state of purity is accomplished - the same each individual Spirit must accomplish, purity, to separate from their physiology to accomplish Admission to the Everlasting.

among all your other errors of thought boosy such as your entire last post in particular the Boomerang theory is mathematically / physics sound.

.

Again, you are conjuring up a theory which defies physics. It is not mathematically sound, physically sound or logically sound. It sounds remarkably similar to a theory which was popular about 20 years ago and widely debated by people like Stephen Hawking, known as the Big Crunch. In that theory, it was speculated that the universe may operate in a cycle of never-ending expanding and contracting. Like a yo-yo or boomerang.

Starting with this hypothesis, the theorists figured if they could measure the change in velocity of the expanding universe they could formulate, through physics, an estimated time for when this cycle might come "full circle" and thus, when the end of time would be. With the help of the Hubble telescope, they began compiling data and what they discovered was jaw-dropping. It blew apart the argument of the Big Crunch and even cast doubts on the Big Bang as viable theories. The universe is not only expanding but accelerating in velocity of expansion.

With all due respect, in light of this information, all bets are off with regard to theories pertaining to cyclical boomerang universe. Science has moved on... we now seek an answer to the question of what is the energy which must be accelerating the expansion of the universe (if Newton was correct)... and we think it has something to do with Dark Matter. BUT... you are stuck on stupid, clinging to the old theory that Science has already abandoned. This is very common for people who worship at the altar of science. It is hard to accept when your messiah has let you down, I get it.

Nevertheless, the universe can't ever "contract" or "return to point of origin" because of uncertainty. Heisenberg has never been disproved. Why do you think Walter White adopted the name? ...SAY MY NAME!

 

[BreezeWood]

it was speculated that the universe may operate in a cycle of never-ending expanding and contracting. Like a yo-yo or boomerang.

you are simply obsessed with believing contraction as the sole means for a cyclical point of origin that is beyond hope - every track meet returns to its origin by running forever forward - Dumb Ass. and you are not intellectual enough to see the difference between angular trajection and compression the former an indisputable loop. a yo-yo has a string on it pulling it back, the boomerang never changes its forward motion - and no there has not been any theorizing on the eternal forward motion of matter angularly returning to its point of origin, our universe.

.

 

[Boss]

it was speculated that the universe may operate in a cycle of never-ending expanding and contracting. Like a yo-yo or boomerang.

you are simply obsessed with believing contraction as the sole means for a cyclical point of origin that is beyond hope - every track meet returns to its origin by running forever forward - Dumb Ass. and you are not intellectual enough to see the difference between angular trajection and compression the former an indisputable loop. a yo-yo has a string on it pulling it back, the boomerang never changes its forward motion - and no there has not been any theorizing on the eternal forward motion of matter angularly returning to its point of origin, our universe.

.

Well when you are running around a track, you are running in a circle. The universe isn't expanding in a circle-- Dumb Ass.

Here's a graphic showing various angles of trajectory and as we see, there is only one example where an object returns to point of origin. That is when the angle of trajectory is 90 degrees and presuming relative gravitational force acting on the object, it will return to point of origin. However, the universe is not acted upon by a relative source of gravity and it's velocity is not slowing down but speeding up.

So this leads me to wonder just what in the fuck are you talking about? You sound like some kind of astral projection nut yammering a bunch of new age hocus-pocus. The proverbial cherry on top is your last sentence.... eternal forward motion returning to point of origin... it doesn't even make rational or logical sense. First of all... eternal forward motion contradicts Newton's three laws of motion.

AND... we haven't even gotten to this...

This is mathematics, Breeze. It's called the Uncertainty Principle. To put this in the most simple of terms that even a moron can understand, for a Singularity to happen.... it HAS to defy mathematics. So even if we entertain your hypothesis of all the matter in the universe somehow defying Newton's laws of motion and accelerating expansion to the point where it mysteriously warps space and time to come back to point of origin... it STILL has to defy mathematics! Of course, if the universe can defy it's own laws of physics, why not math too? I guess that's how you figure it.

When you publish your formulas let me know so I can be looking for you to win the Nobel Prize... but honestly, I don't think peer review is going to be very kind to you.

 

[ChrisL]

There is no proof either way of a god creating the universe, so I don't know what you're arguing about so vehemently. If that's what you want to believe, then you are totally within your right to believe that, but you aren't producing any kind of proof here.

 

[ChrisL]

My God problem isn't good with my eating treat he will force my food to him of through then he tell liars about America and Nazism.

I don't know what this means, but if you are hearing voices, then you need to go get some help for that and talk to someone. They might be able to help you with this problem and give you some relief.

 

[BreezeWood]

Here's a graphic showing various angles of trajectory and as we see, there is only one example where an object returns to point of origin.

you are hopeless, your graph does not demonstrate an angular trajectory from a spherical point of origin from Singularity that by its own description would by definition become a closed loop - Dumb Ass.

.

 

[BreezeWood]

There is no proof either way of a god creating the universe, so I don't know what you're arguing about so vehemently.

if that is being generically attributed the creation of the universe is not the same as its characteristics and for that there are examples where one form is superior to others and the direction it is derived from has meaning for why it exists. so if there is not an Almighty there is no reason to believe over time that stewardship could very well evolve and for some already has.

.

 

[Militants]

God doens't learning me Finnish so I cannot speak Finnish.

God only help me with Swedish and then English in forum.

 

[Boss]

There is no proof either way of a god creating the universe, so I don't know what you're arguing about so vehemently. If that's what you want to believe, then you are totally within your right to believe that, but you aren't producing any kind of proof here.

Well everyone has an opinion but I think it's valid to say that physical nature cannot create physical nature and therefore, something outside physical nature had to create it. You are totally within your rights to believe in magic and demand proof magic didn't happen. Now, I have not argued about "Gods" only a thing I call "spiritual nature" because that is the word we invented to describe the nature outside of physical nature. I guess you could say "metaphysical" if your bias toward religion prohibits you recognizing the word "spiritual" but then I think we are into a semantics argument. In any event, something obviously created physical nature and a physical reality in a physical universe and it couldn't have created itself and it probably wasn't magic.

 

[Boss]

Here's a graphic showing various angles of trajectory and as we see, there is only one example where an object returns to point of origin.

you are hopeless, your graph does not demonstrate an angular trajectory from a spherical point of origin from Singularity that by its own description would by definition become a closed loop - Dumb Ass..

You continue talking about a scientific theory suggested by general relativity which was very popular until about 1991. That is when we discovered something unexpected is happening. The matter in the universe is accelerating in expansion. Today, the universe will expand faster than it expanded yesterday and tomorrow it will expand faster than today. If the forces of gravity are not working against the expansion of matter then a gravitational singularity cannot happen.

Quantum mechanics suggests that singularities do happen inside black holes but we are unable to observe anything beyond the event horizon so this remains a theory. Some theoretical physicists are skeptical of any singularity because particles of matter cannot be compressed smaller than their wavelength. In terms of explaining origin of the universe, singularity is no longer a viable option.

Even 25 years ago, when we thought singularity might have been the condition the moment before the Big Bang, there were still many serious questions surrounding that theory because it would defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In order to believe what you are claiming, we must dismiss 25 years of science as well as violating the laws of motion and universal physical principles. If you're going that far, why not just believe in a universe created by God?

 

[ChrisL]

Here's a graphic showing various angles of trajectory and as we see, there is only one example where an object returns to point of origin.

you are hopeless, your graph does not demonstrate an angular trajectory from a spherical point of origin from Singularity that by its own description would by definition become a closed loop - Dumb Ass..

You continue talking about a scientific theory suggested by general relativity which was very popular until about 1991. That is when we discovered something unexpected is happening. The matter in the universe is accelerating in expansion. Today, the universe will expand faster than it expanded yesterday and tomorrow it will expand faster than today. If the forces of gravity are not working against the expansion of matter then a gravitational singularity cannot happen.

Quantum mechanics suggests that singularities do happen inside black holes but we are unable to observe anything beyond the event horizon so this remains a theory. Some theoretical physicists are skeptical of any singularity because particles of matter cannot be compressed smaller than their wavelength. In terms of explaining origin of the universe, singularity is no longer a viable option.

Even 25 years ago, when we thought singularity might have been the condition the moment before the Big Bang, there were still many serious questions surrounding that theory because it would defy Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. In order to believe what you are claiming, we must dismiss 25 years of science as well as violating the laws of motion and universal physical principles. If you're going that far, why not just believe in a universe created by God?

Why not? Because it's silly, that's why.

 

[Boss]

Why not? Because it's silly, that's why.

Well... TO ME... it's just as silly to believe in a theory that defies science and violates the laws of nature. But setting aside deities like "God" there is no escaping the paradox that physical nature could not have created itself.

 

[ChrisL]

Why not? Because it's silly, that's why.

Well... TO ME... it's just as silly to believe in a theory that defies science and violates the laws of nature. But setting aside deities like "God" there is no escaping the paradox that physical nature could not have created itself.

Sure it could have. That theory makes more sense than "God did it." Lol. They used to attribute storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. to the works of "gods" too. That's been proven wrong.

 

[Boss]

Why not? Because it's silly, that's why.

Well... TO ME... it's just as silly to believe in a theory that defies science and violates the laws of nature. But setting aside deities like "God" there is no escaping the paradox that physical nature could not have created itself.

Sure it could have. That theory makes more sense than "God did it." Lol. They used to attribute storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. to the works of "gods" too. That's been proven wrong.

How can physical nature (or anything) create itself? Explain that logic to me?

They've not proven anything "wrong" they've merely determined what causes those things. It doesn't mean something beyond the physical isn't in control of it.

 

[ChrisL]

Why not? Because it's silly, that's why.

Well... TO ME... it's just as silly to believe in a theory that defies science and violates the laws of nature. But setting aside deities like "God" there is no escaping the paradox that physical nature could not have created itself.

Sure it could have. That theory makes more sense than "God did it." Lol. They used to attribute storms, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. to the works of "gods" too. That's been proven wrong.

How can physical nature (or anything) create itself? Explain that logic to me?

They've not proven anything "wrong" they've merely determined what causes those things. It doesn't mean something beyond the physical isn't in control of it.

Go back to school! Good grief!

 

[ChrisL]

BBC Earth - Timeline - The Earth formed from a vast gas and dust cloud

 

[ChrisL]

First Land Plants and Fungi Changed Earth's Climate, Paving the Way for Explosive Evolution of Land Animals, New Gene Study Suggests — Eberly College of Science

 

[Boss]

BBC Earth - Timeline - The Earth formed from a vast gas and dust cloud

It wasn't until the 90s that scientists answered the question as to how microscopic cosmic dust formed planets. An experiment on the International Space Station using salt crystals confirmed that in the zero-gravity vacuum of space, particles coalesce together due to a very small electromagnetic charge. Now.... there is NOTHING in physics which says this very small electromagnetic charge MUST exist... it just does. It's one of more than 40 variables which must be precisely as they are for a physical universe to exist as we know it. Physics can answer how these things happen or how they work but physics has no explanation for why they happen.

Okay... so you understand the makeup of our planet, right? Earth is comprised of a crust, a mantle and a molten iron-nickel core. How did it get that way? If we imagine random elements and cosmic dust floating around in space, coalescing together as we've determined through electromagnetic charges, etc. The result is a giant clump of assorted matter that has no crust, mantle or core. So how did we get from that point to where we are? Iron and nickel are the heaviest elements... in order for them to make up our core, the entire mass of our planet (which is a random compilation of all elements) had to undergo a tremendous heat which essentially melted the entire planet. While in a molten state, the lighter elements floated to the top to form our crust, the median elements formed our mantle and the heavier elements of iron and nickel formed our core. Make sense?

Now the problem is... what caused this great heat that had to be thousands of times hotter than the sun was capable of producing? Why did this heat source not affect any of the other rocky planets in our proximity? You see... it's our molten iron-nickel core which gives us polar magnetism and enables our atmosphere and protects us from cosmic radiation. It's why we're not like Mars. So it's a very important question and one that science cannot answer at this time. There is simply not a rational explanation.

Then there is the water. How did it get here? Theorists say it came from massive meteor bombardments over time but the planet would have needed to be cool enough to retain the water and not have it evaporate as steam back out into space. Carbon dating confirms the oldest Earth rocks ever discovered are just over 4 billion years old... that makes sense and fits in with our theories of when the planet was formed... BUT... the interesting thing is, we've also discovered these 4 billion year old rocks were formed under water. So now... the water can't both be here and not be here at the same time.

The point I am trying to make to you is this... We don't know everything. We certainly know very little about the "WHY" aspects. Science can help us understand the "HOW" aspects of our planet and universe but there remains the "WHY" and we can't answer that with physical science. There is a reason we can't.

 

[Boss]

First Land Plants and Fungi Changed Earth's Climate, Paving the Way for Explosive Evolution of Land Animals, New Gene Study Suggests — Eberly College of Science

You do understand that a "suggestion" is not a proven scientific fact.... right?