If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?
https://www.quora.com/If-energy-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-it-exist
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
God made it.
I have a good question.
How is space created?
Another good question.
Can space be created in a lab?
The Rev Dodgson said:
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?https://www.quora.com/If-energy-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-it-exist
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
It exists as particles and particles are either being compressed or expanded depending on the state of matter.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?https://www.quora.com/If-energy-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-it-exist
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
It exists as particles and particles are either being compressed or expanded depending on the state of matter.
nah.
The Rev Dodgson said:
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?https://www.quora.com/If-energy-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-it-exist
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
The universe began at infinite temperature, that was the first creation of mass/energy.
But there was a second, the inflationary epoch. How can I put this? Consider the quantum vacuum at the current time. There are particles popping into and out space all the time, disappearing within a time given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When space is expanding fast enough, these particles pop into existence but space has moved on before they have a way to pop back out of existence, so they stay around. This creates mass-energy.
Also, we can even say there was a third, the vacuum energy proportional to the cosmological constant that gives us dark energy.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I have a good question. How is space created?Another good question. Can space be created in a lab?
The answer to the second of these is “no”.
The answer to the first of these is the same as that given above for the creation of mass-energy. Some space was created from the original infinite temperature, most (on a logarithmic scale) created during the inflationary epoch. And some created by the cosmological constant.
I haven’t yet seen a simple introduction to slow roll inflation. The following link (one page with 7 mathematical equations) is what Google considers a simple introduction to slow roll inflation. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Liddle/Liddle5_2.html
mollwollfumble said:
The universe began at infinite temperature, that was the first creation of mass/energy.
We have no evidence for that.
Neither could there be any.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?https://www.quora.com/If-energy-cannot-be-created-or-destroyed-then-how-does-it-exist
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to have a good answer.
The universe began at infinite temperature, that was the first creation of mass/energy.
But there was a second, the inflationary epoch. How can I put this? Consider the quantum vacuum at the current time. There are particles popping into and out space all the time, disappearing within a time given by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. When space is expanding fast enough, these particles pop into existence but space has moved on before they have a way to pop back out of existence, so they stay around. This creates mass-energy.
Also, we can even say there was a third, the vacuum energy proportional to the cosmological constant that gives us dark energy.
Tau.Neutrino said:
I have a good question. How is space created?Another good question. Can space be created in a lab?
The answer to the second of these is “no”.
The answer to the first of these is the same as that given above for the creation of mass-energy. Some space was created from the original infinite temperature, most (on a logarithmic scale) created during the inflationary epoch. And some created by the cosmological constant.
I haven’t yet seen a simple introduction to slow roll inflation. The following link (one page with 7 mathematical equations) is what Google considers a simple introduction to slow roll inflation. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Liddle/Liddle5_2.html
This article is long, but good and relatively easy to read. It uses graphs and animations to explain where space and matter came from, rather than equations.
mollwollfumble said:
This article is long, but good and relatively easy to read. It uses graphs and animations to explain where space and matter came from, rather than equations.
Have a read of that. It explains things better than I could.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:The universe began at infinite temperature, that was the first creation of mass/energy.
We have no evidence for that.
Neither could there be any.
What, you’ve never heard of the cosmic microwave background. That’s the proof.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:This article is long, but good and relatively easy to read. It uses graphs and animations to explain where space and matter came from, rather than equations.
Have a read of that. It explains things better than I could.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:The universe began at infinite temperature, that was the first creation of mass/energy.
We have no evidence for that.
Neither could there be any.
What, you’ve never heard of the cosmic microwave background. That’s the proof.
Of course it bloody well isn’t!
I don’t get the question, the why part.
is there an anomaly?
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
There has been one big one for 13.7 billion years, and its showing no signs of going away.
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
There has been one big one for 13.7 billion years, and its showing no signs of going away.
please explain
transition said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
There has been one big one for 13.7 billion years, and its showing no signs of going away.
please explain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble’s law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang at around 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe. After the initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements later coalesced through gravity in halos of dark matter, eventually forming the stars and galaxies visible today.
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
Peak Warming Man said:
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
Did the big bang create energy?
Aren’t you more sensing an anomaly of the limits of your knowledge?
I bump into it every day
Peak Warming Man said:
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
some things, of nature, are answers, they don’t necessarily demand or require a question.
it’s a strange idea perhaps, that it doesn’t yield to the efforts of minds.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
Take the yoyo theory, the BB happens and then as the matter is scattered it cools ans slows and gravity brings it all back to a singularity that then goes bang again and so on ad infinitum, that would mean perpetual motion if no energy is destroyed each time.
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
Take the yoyo theory, the BB happens and then as the matter is scattered it cools ans slows and gravity brings it all back to a singularity that then goes bang again and so on ad infinitum, that would mean perpetual motion if no energy is destroyed each time.
we surmise that that isn’t the fate of this universe because of dark energy. it will expand forever at an accelerating rate.
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Since the Big Bank hasn’t work been done and thus using/destroying energy?
it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
Take the yoyo theory, the BB happens and then as the matter is scattered it cools ans slows and gravity brings it all back to a singularity that then goes bang again and so on ad infinitum, that would mean perpetual motion if no energy is destroyed each time.
perpetual motion is doable as long as no work is being done.
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
Which is the why part?
There was no why in the question?
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
Take the yoyo theory, the BB happens and then as the matter is scattered it cools ans slows and gravity brings it all back to a singularity that then goes bang again and so on ad infinitum, that would mean perpetual motion if no energy is destroyed each time.
we surmise that that isn’t the fate of this universe because of dark energy. it will expand forever at an accelerating rate.
I’d say some hypothesise, rather than we surmise.
ChrispenEvan said:
Peak Warming Man said:
ChrispenEvan said:it is the overall mass/energy of the universe that can’t be changed.
Take the yoyo theory, the BB happens and then as the matter is scattered it cools ans slows and gravity brings it all back to a singularity that then goes bang again and so on ad infinitum, that would mean perpetual motion if no energy is destroyed each time.
we surmise that that isn’t the fate of this universe because of dark energy. it will expand forever at an accelerating rate.
A change in acceleration would require work.
captain_spalding said:
God made it.
Jesus made loaves and fishes from it.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
Which is the why part?
There was no why in the question?
the how part.
which goes to why is it as it is.
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
I don’t get the question, the why part.is there an anomaly?
Which is the why part?
There was no why in the question?
the how part.
which goes to why is it as it is.
I’m not sure what you mean by an anomaly, but the question seems reasonable to me. We might ask:
If energy exists, why do we say it cannot be created?
I don’t think the destroyed part has anything to do with it.
There is also a theory around that dark matter possesses a reverse gravity.
The current Standard Model is only 15 years old and is a work in progress as is PWM’s independent Think Tank.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Which is the why part?
There was no why in the question?
the how part.
which goes to why is it as it is.
I’m not sure what you mean by an anomaly, but the question seems reasonable to me. We might ask:
If energy exists, why do we say it cannot be created?
I don’t think the destroyed part has anything to do with it.
i’d expect the answer, or something hinting toward an answer, is in the question of what happens at zero kelvin
Peak Warming Man said:
There is also a theory around that dark matter possesses a reverse gravity.
The current Standard Model is only 15 years old and is a work in progress as is PWM’s independent Think Tank.
CERN says it’s about 45years old.
Not that that has anything to do with the answer.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
There is also a theory around that dark matter possesses a reverse gravity.
The current Standard Model is only 15 years old and is a work in progress as is PWM’s independent Think Tank.CERN says it’s about 45years old.
Not that that has anything to do with the answer.
Probably an Asian theory, hard to tell.
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:
The Rev Dodgson said:Which is the why part?
There was no why in the question?
the how part.
which goes to why is it as it is.
I’m not sure what you mean by an anomaly, but the question seems reasonable to me. We might ask:
If energy exists, why do we say it cannot be created?
I don’t think the destroyed part has anything to do with it.
Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
opps, They were meant to be separate questions.
Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
opps, They were meant to be separate questions.Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
If there are many different states of matter, could there be many different states of the universe, in that it is evolving from its early state is is moving onto another state in the future?
Changing its state over time.
Can any observed behaviors of the universe from a distance correlate to behaviors close up?
If there are multiverses do singularities occur in each one?
Tau.Neutrino said:
If there are multiverses do singularities occur in each one?
Ah, now we’re getting down to good questions.
First of all, forget topological and quantum multiverses here, we’re talking either:
The answer for all four is yes
… but …
in some if not all of these the singularity doesn’t have to have zero space dimensions, any number of space dimensions other than three will suffice, be it 0, 2, 9 or 10.
The “singularity” in each case is uniformity, constancy of properties such as potential energy, temperature, etc across the whole of the “singularity”. Or to put in another way, properties after the singularity are completely disconnected from those before the singularity.
Tau.Neutrino said:
opps, They were meant to be separate questions.Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
Q1. Yes or no. Our present universe is metastable, the potential energy of the quantum vacuum is available if any part of it was to go unstable and create a new universe. So in that case the energy existed originally. On the other hand, if time didn’t exist before the big bang then the energy could only have been created by the singularity itself.
Q2. Define “unaware”.
Q3. Yes, sort of. In a black hole, though one has to be really really careful about what constitutes “destroying” in this case.
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
transition said:the how part.
which goes to why is it as it is.
I’m not sure what you mean by an anomaly, but the question seems reasonable to me. We might ask:
If energy exists, why do we say it cannot be created?
I don’t think the destroyed part has anything to do with it.
Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
We don’t know.
We also don’t know if there was a singularity (imo it’s very unlikely).
But for “singularity” I’m happy to substitute “whatever existed at the start of the observable universe”.
Peak Warming Man said:
There is also a theory around that dark matter possesses a reverse gravity.
The current Standard Model is only 15 years old and is a work in progress as is PWM’s independent Think Tank.
Bloody MOND. Yes. From 1982.
In its current incarnation called the f ( r ) theory of gravity. From 2004.
This has been disproved on multiple occasions in multiple contexts, but then every other theory of dark matter permitted by Occam’s Razor has also been disproved.
PermeateFree said:
captain_spalding said:
God made it.
Jesus made loaves and fishes from it.
If you look up your Bible, Jesus only made loaves from it. The fishes were red herrings.
transition said:
Aren’t you more sensing an anomaly of the limits of your knowledge?I bump into it every day
Yes.
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
By Jonathan Creek.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
mollwollfumble said:
PermeateFree said:
captain_spalding said:
God made it.
Jesus made loaves and fishes from it.
If you look up your Bible, Jesus only made loaves from it. The fishes were red herrings.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
I think it’s been re-written enough…
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Yes and it has been written in todays language, and Klingon, and pidgin etc etc.
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Time for a new version to reflect modern law, human rights and modern ideologies ?
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Time for a new version to reflect modern law, human rights and modern ideologies ?
Oh Jeeze, walked into that one. It wouldn’t be a translation of the original then would it, you would be talking about something else. Anti religious nutters are as boring and single minded as God nutters.
AwesomeO said:
Oh Jeeze, walked into that one. It wouldn’t be a translation of the original then would it, you would be talking about something else. Anti religious nutters are as boring and single minded as God nutters.
^this.
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
AwesomeO said:The King James is only one of many versions including ordinary language ones.
The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Time for a new version to reflect modern law, human rights and modern ideologies ?
Oh Jeeze, walked into that one. It wouldn’t be a translation of the original then would it, you would be talking about something else. Anti religious nutters are as boring and single minded as God nutters.
Ha!
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Time for a new version to reflect modern law, human rights and modern ideologies ?
Oh Jeeze, walked into that one. It wouldn’t be a translation of the original then would it, you would be talking about something else. Anti religious nutters are as boring and single minded as God nutters.
It would be interesting to see the bible with its ideologies free of imaginary stuff and contradictions.
It would look very different I think.
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
and keep your emotional violence to yourself
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
it isn’t censorship you idiot. how about you actually have some self-control? or is that a bit much to ask of you?
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
and keep your emotional violence to yourself
go fuck yourself.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
You’e an idiot…
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
it isn’t censorship you idiot. how about you actually have some self-control? or is that a bit much to ask of you?
It is censorship!
Why don’t you show some emotional control.
Keep your emotional violence to yourself
poikilotherm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
I think it’s been re-written enough…
Every now and then I toy with the idea of rewriting it from an atheist (or agnostic) perspective.
Completely removing the word “God” for instance and replacing it with “Elohim”, “El Shaddai” and “JHWY” as appropriate.
My version would be based on the three volume “Translators Bible”, which highlights the many differences between different original texts. Updated using the more recent texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Also, why bother telling Matthew, Mark and Luke in separate books. They’re just retelling Mark plus the cryptic text Q. And remove all the duplication of this from John.
Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:I don’t pollute every thread
Stop trying to censor people
disgusting
it isn’t censorship you idiot. how about you actually have some self-control? or is that a bit much to ask of you?
It is censorship!
Why don’t you show some emotional control.
Keep your emotional violence to yourself
like i said before go fuck yourself. you talk tripe. you don’t read anything and actually understand it. you wont get a proper diagnosis of your mental problems because you are too scared they will come back negative. then you wont have an excuse to be like you are.
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:it isn’t censorship you idiot. how about you actually have some self-control? or is that a bit much to ask of you?
It is censorship!
Why don’t you show some emotional control.
Keep your emotional violence to yourself
like i said before go fuck yourself. you talk tripe. you don’t read anything and actually understand it. you wont get a proper diagnosis of your mental problems because you are too scared they will come back negative. then you wont have an excuse to be like you are.
You have a choice not to read the thread or post.
.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
I’m surprised you can spell ‘debate’…
Tau.Neutrino said:
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:It is censorship!
Why don’t you show some emotional control.
Keep your emotional violence to yourself
like i said before go fuck yourself. you talk tripe. you don’t read anything and actually understand it. you wont get a proper diagnosis of your mental problems because you are too scared they will come back negative. then you wont have an excuse to be like you are.
You have a choice not to read the thread or post.
.
and have now reduced yourself to trolling.
mollwollfumble said:
poikilotherm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
I think it’s been re-written enough…
Every now and then I toy with the idea of rewriting it from an atheist (or agnostic) perspective.
Completely removing the word “God” for instance and replacing it with “Elohim”, “El Shaddai” and “JHWY” as appropriate.
My version would be based on the three volume “Translators Bible”, which highlights the many differences between different original texts. Updated using the more recent texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Also, why bother telling Matthew, Mark and Luke in separate books. They’re just retelling Mark plus the cryptic text Q. And remove all the duplication of this from John.
I would like to see a completely revamped version free of, heaven, hell, imaginary spaces, contradictions and observations in error.
mollwollfumble said:
poikilotherm said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Should the bible be rewritten in today’s language?
I think it’s been re-written enough…
Every now and then I toy with the idea of rewriting it from an atheist (or agnostic) perspective.
Completely removing the word “God” for instance and replacing it with “Elohim”, “El Shaddai” and “JHWY” as appropriate.
My version would be based on the three volume “Translators Bible”, which highlights the many differences between different original texts. Updated using the more recent texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Also, why bother telling Matthew, Mark and Luke in separate books. They’re just retelling Mark plus the cryptic text Q. And remove all the duplication of this from John.
ChrispenEvan said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Michael V said:What about Today’s English Version? (Etc)
A really slimmed down version.
A bible free of any unnecessary text.
A bible free of contradictions or any hypocritical ideologies.
A bible that deals with reality and makes no reference to imaginary spaces, monsters, heaven, hell, souls being tortured etc
fuck off polluting every thread with you religious tripe.
Yeah, modern language. That should be in the Bible’s introduction.
Tau.Neutrino said:
Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
AwesomeO said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
Tau.Neutrino said:The King James version was completed in 1611 was 507 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB) or simply the Authorized Version (AV), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England, begun in 1604 and completed in 1611
A lot has changed over 507 years.
Time for a new version to reflect modern law, human rights and modern ideologies ?
Oh Jeeze, walked into that one. It wouldn’t be a translation of the original then would it, you would be talking about something else. Anti religious nutters are as boring and single minded as God nutters.
Are they really? I’ve never met one. I grew up with an atheist mother, agnostic father, C of E older sister, Baptist younger older sister, non-sectarian Christian first wife, and Church of Christ second wife. I’ve had periods of being christian, agnostic and atheist. I have a soft spot for the Tao, Jain and Buddhism.
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
Tau.Neutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
No one would notice Boris’ and my replies as the audience was reduced to giggles at your pearls of wisdom…
Tau.Neutrino said:
PermeateFree said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Both Witty Rejoinder and ChrispenEvan are terrible debaters.
No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
Probably!
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
PermeateFree said:No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
No one would notice Boris’ and my replies as the audience was reduced to giggles at your pearls of wisdom…
You don’t need to try being an arsehole Witty, it comes naturally to you.
:)))
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
PermeateFree said:No they’re not, they’re just arseholes, apparently the same as me.
:)))
Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
No one would notice Boris’ and my replies as the audience was reduced to giggles at your pearls of wisdom…
I remain indifferent.
:)
PermeateFree said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Anyone that reduces themselves to swearing and storming out of the room slamming the door is a terrible debater
What would happen if was on Q&A would he start punching other debaters because he doesn’t like what being said.
No one would notice Boris’ and my replies as the audience was reduced to giggles at your pearls of wisdom…
You don’t need to try being an arsehole Witty, it comes naturally to you.
:)))
Yeah it’s you and CN against the world… strange bedfellows to be sure.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I’m not sure what you mean by an anomaly, but the question seems reasonable to me. We might ask:
If energy exists, why do we say it cannot be created?
I don’t think the destroyed part has anything to do with it.
Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
We don’t know.
We also don’t know if there was a singularity (imo it’s very unlikely).
But for “singularity” I’m happy to substitute “whatever existed at the start of the observable universe”.
The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
We don’t know.
We also don’t know if there was a singularity (imo it’s very unlikely).
But for “singularity” I’m happy to substitute “whatever existed at the start of the observable universe”.
The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
overall of energy = amount
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Tau.Neutrino said:Did the the energy created by the singularity already exist, or was it created by the singularity itself?
If the energy already existed then perhaps the singularity was in another state we are un aware of?
If the singularity can create energy perhaps it can destroy it as well ?
We don’t know.
We also don’t know if there was a singularity (imo it’s very unlikely).
But for “singularity” I’m happy to substitute “whatever existed at the start of the observable universe”.
The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
I probably should have known about that.
It does seem to me that speculations that are not even consistent with accepted physics are treated (at least at the pop-sci level) as indisputable facts.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:We don’t know.
We also don’t know if there was a singularity (imo it’s very unlikely).
But for “singularity” I’m happy to substitute “whatever existed at the start of the observable universe”.
The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
I probably should have known about that.
It does seem to me that speculations that are not even consistent with accepted physics are treated (at least at the pop-sci level) as indisputable facts.
In inflationary cosmology the net energy content of the universe is nil, since energy is balanced by gravity which counts as “negative energy”.
(There’s plenty of energy available locally at various times as the universe goes about its business, but the net figure remains zero.)
>Astrophysicists Alexei Filippenko at the University of California, Berkeley and Jay Pasachoff at Williams College explain gravity’s negative energy by way of example in their essay, “A Universe From Nothing”: “If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.”
In other words, the ball’s positive energy increases, but at the same time, negative energy is added to the Earth’s gravitational field. What was a zero-energy ball at rest in space later becomes a zero-energy ball that is falling through space.
The universe as a whole can be compared to this ball. Initially, before the big bang, the universe-ball was at rest. Now, after the big bang, it is falling: light and matter exist, and they are moving. And yet, because of the negative energy built into the gravity field created by these particles, the total energy of the universe remains zero.<
https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
I probably should have known about that.
It does seem to me that speculations that are not even consistent with accepted physics are treated (at least at the pop-sci level) as indisputable facts.
In inflationary cosmology the net energy content of the universe is nil, since energy is balanced by gravity which counts as “negative energy”.
(There’s plenty of energy available locally at various times as the universe goes about its business, but the net figure remains zero.)
>Astrophysicists Alexei Filippenko at the University of California, Berkeley and Jay Pasachoff at Williams College explain gravity’s negative energy by way of example in their essay, “A Universe From Nothing”: “If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.”
In other words, the ball’s positive energy increases, but at the same time, negative energy is added to the Earth’s gravitational field. What was a zero-energy ball at rest in space later becomes a zero-energy ball that is falling through space.
The universe as a whole can be compared to this ball. Initially, before the big bang, the universe-ball was at rest. Now, after the big bang, it is falling: light and matter exist, and they are moving. And yet, because of the negative energy built into the gravity field created by these particles, the total energy of the universe remains zero.<
https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
Interesting.
If the universe expands forever and eventually heat death occurs and it’s a cold empty universe could that be proof God doesn’t exist as that’s a poor ending to it all.
Cymek said:
If the universe expands forever and eventually heat death occurs and it’s a cold empty universe could that be proof God doesn’t exist as that’s a poor ending to it all.
Well it would certainly be proof of “mysterious ways”.
But since there would be no-one around to observe this poor ending, it’s not very useful as a proof.
The Rev Dodgson said:
If energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how does it exist?
Energy conservation is a bit of furphy. Energy is only conserved under very specific conditions, that is in flat and static spacetime geometries, and since our universe is at the very least dynamic, it’s not entirely useful to even talk about the total energy of the universe.
The best thing we can do it look at the energy density over a fixed volume and see how it changes with a changing spacetime.
This of course doesn’t answer you initial question, the best we can do there is to say that energy is a property of the universe, and always has been.
Bubblecar said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Bubblecar said:The idea is that during the inflation phase, energy density (instead of quantity) is conserved, meaning that the overall of energy massively inflates as the universe rapidly expands.
I don’t know the current status of this idea and how it fits with today’s physics.
I probably should have known about that.
It does seem to me that speculations that are not even consistent with accepted physics are treated (at least at the pop-sci level) as indisputable facts.
In inflationary cosmology the net energy content of the universe is nil, since energy is balanced by gravity which counts as “negative energy”.
(There’s plenty of energy available locally at various times as the universe goes about its business, but the net figure remains zero.)
>Astrophysicists Alexei Filippenko at the University of California, Berkeley and Jay Pasachoff at Williams College explain gravity’s negative energy by way of example in their essay, “A Universe From Nothing”: “If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.”
In other words, the ball’s positive energy increases, but at the same time, negative energy is added to the Earth’s gravitational field. What was a zero-energy ball at rest in space later becomes a zero-energy ball that is falling through space.
The universe as a whole can be compared to this ball. Initially, before the big bang, the universe-ball was at rest. Now, after the big bang, it is falling: light and matter exist, and they are moving. And yet, because of the negative energy built into the gravity field created by these particles, the total energy of the universe remains zero.<
https://www.livescience.com/33129-total-energy-universe-zero.html
Hmmm, yes.. strokes beard.. that all sounds very neat.
What is wrong with this statement then, “the universe CAN”T have a net zero mass, because by E =mc^2, if m=0, E =0, which means the universe has no rest energy and so the universe can’t exist and zero net rest energy means no particle at all! and universe without particles or matters is simply not an universe!”?
d-s may have answered my quibble.
I should point out that when inflationary cosmologists talk about a “universe from nothing” it’s just a figure of speech. They’re not talking about literally nothing, they’re talking about the inflation of initially tiny quantum fluctuations, which are not nothing :)
>the best we can do there is to say that energy is a property of the universe, and always has been
animates the (giving) structure of/to the universe, and everything in it.
