Origin, Philosophy & Atheism (critical thought) - DFWstangs Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-26-2007, 08:54 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Challenge for Atheists

I have something I like to throw out there for atheists to get their logic/philosophy/viewpoint. This thread is philosophical, not scientific.

Foundation:
Science admits that it does not comment on what it cannot test (including other dimensions like heaven, and including what created matter itself so that there cold be a big bang, assuming that theory is accurate). Science only comments on the physical, and admits that it only theorizes on the origin of all things, because with out witnessing it first hand, one cannot know something for certain. Atheists choose to believe there is no God, and have no proof to show this, Agnostics simply choose to not make a choice and don’t know if there is a God, and Theists choose to believe in a God without physical evidence.

Logical Deduction About Origin:
Everything (except one thing) must have a beginning. And if everything has a beginning, it must have been created. And if it was created, it must have a creator. What is created is not eternal (ie. - Has not always existed). The source of all things must be eternal in nature, having always existed (otherwise, he/it too would have been created by something else). Therefore, philosophically, there must be an eternal creator who has always existed, that created everything and is all powerful.

Question:
How is it possible for someone to get around this fact? Explain how everything exists without having something or someone to cause the existence.

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO

Last edited by BrianC; 10-30-2007 at 08:18 PM.
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-26-2007, 09:20 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
subscribing......sent you a PM Brian

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #3 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 08:19 PM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
No takers?

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
 
post #4 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 09:31 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?
FSON is offline  
post #5 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-30-2007, 09:47 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?
Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.
Denny is offline  
post #6 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 09:25 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Asking a question like that, does nothing but reveal ignorance and your weak quest to try to sound like a Mason.
I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).
FSON is offline  
post #7 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:36 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
I know very little about the Masonic group and I am not a Mason so there is no act of trying on my part (non reflexive).
Ya, OK. Here's exhibit B.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=339698
Denny is offline  
post #8 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 11:38 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Exhibit C.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?
Denny is offline  
post #9 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:34 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
I watched a great show the other night with Lee Strobel. It was called Case for a Creator. Apparently, the chance is too overwhelming rare for our existence. It's like one of those fraction of a fraction of a billion zillion eleventy trillionths! So scientists, in an effor to justify our existence, are saying that there must be "parallel universes". But, in the same vein as FSON's question, there is still the same question, "What, then, is the origin of those universes?"

I just don't see how science can entertain all these crazy unsubstantiated ideas (parallel universes), but totally shoot down God when there is only evidence that He exists. Nothing was created without Him. How tall will the Scientific Version of the Tower of Babel grow? That's cool, and now I see science in a new way. Like people, separated by color /race and language. Science is separated and classified; with the "holy grail" being the unification of the separate fields...Help me out here Casper. You could bring clarity to this thread.
Fastback is offline  
post #10 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:35 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Exhibit C.

https://www.dfwstangs.net/forums/showthread.php?t=336430

Are you really trying to make people think you know something or do you really have something to share?
Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).
FSON is offline  
post #11 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:37 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
When will people learn that there are things that are uncomprehendible to us? Just accept it and be happy.
Denny is offline  
post #12 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:38 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Argumentum Ad Hominem, point at hand please (I don't know jack).
It's not a personal attack, just pointing out the obvious.
Denny is offline  
post #13 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:40 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
According to Online Etymology Dictionary

Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
How can there be an origin? What is the origin of origin?


Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #14 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:41 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
Nice!
Denny is offline  
post #15 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:43 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Yes, something must have been eternal. But who's to say that eternal "thing" is a god?

There are some false statements in your original argument. You ASSUME that what is "created" is not eternal. And ASSUME that it must have had a creator. Neither of which are necessarily true.

Further, given conservation of certain parts of the known universe...why can't those parts be eternal (e.g: mass, energy)?
exlude is offline  
post #16 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:44 PM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Origin was first recorded in 1563.


The adjective original came about in 1315, from L. originalis, from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise" (see orchestra). The first ref. is in original sin "innate depravity of man's nature," supposed to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall. The noun, in sense of "original text," is attested from c.1385, from M.L. originale. Of photographs, films, sound recordings, etc., from 1918. Origin first recorded 1563. Originality is first attested 1742, probably after Fr. originalité.
And the origin of originalis?

Edit:
We can go on like this for years and you will prove NO foundation.
FSON is offline  
post #17 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:47 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
Fastback is offline  
post #18 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:48 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
I watched a great show the other night with Lee Strobel. It was called Case for a Creator. Apparently, the chance is too overwhelming rare for our existence. It's like one of those fraction of a fraction of a billion zillion eleventy trillionths! So scientists, in an effor to justify our existence, are saying that there must be "parallel universes". But, in the same vein as FSON's question, there is still the same question, "What, then, is the origin of those universes?"

I just don't see how science can entertain all these crazy unsubstantiated ideas (parallel universes), but totally shoot down God when there is only evidence that He exists. Nothing was created without Him. How tall will the Scientific Version of the Tower of Babel grow? That's cool, and now I see science in a new way. Like people, separated by color /race and language. Science is separated and classified; with the "holy grail" being the unification of the separate fields...Help me out here Casper. You could bring clarity to this thread.

I feel like we should start to see a growing number of people that see it both ways. We are just starting to open our minds to the ideas that maybe we came from a cocktail of bubbling goo forming a single cell ameoba from a bolt of lightening that God sent down because he knew that we would evolve into humans from said goo. Previously, you could only subscribe to one view or the other, according to society.

I have personally always felt like science was so close to a portion of the truth, but closed their minds to some possibilities. This is where I feel that being a specialist doesn't pay off. Sure, a specialist might make leaps and bounds with one field, but another person could look into this feild with an imagination and expand where the specialist couldn't.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #19 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:49 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?
Denny is offline  
post #20 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:50 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
. This is where I feel that being a specialist doesn't pay off. Sure, a specialist might make leaps and bounds with one field, but another person could look into this feild with an imagination and expand where the specialist couldn't.
Have you been studying for the GRE?
Fastback is offline  
post #21 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:52 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
They have discovered that the universe is expanding. Based on that, scientists believe it used to be eternally dense, compacted on itself. Something gave it outward momentum because of the "slowing of the rate of outward expansion". So what was it?
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
exlude is offline  
post #22 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:52 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
And the origin of originalis?

Edit:
We can go on like this for years and you will prove NO foundation.

I wasn't building a foundation. You asked for the origin of origin. Originalis is Latin, it comes from originem (nom. origo) "beginning, source, birth," from oriri "to rise".

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #23 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:53 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Are you sure they're not just seeing light from a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG ways away and it could be images from LOOOOOOOOONG ago?
From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.
exlude is offline  
post #24 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:54 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.
Denny is offline  
post #25 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:54 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Have you been studying for the GRE?

No, but after looking it up I would say it looks interesting.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #26 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:56 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
From the studies I have seen, this little detail is normally taken into account.
We can jump light years ahead looking through things like the Hubbel Telescope. I'm sure any outward movement seen around the "edge of the univese" happened well before the telescope was even a thought.
Denny is offline  
post #27 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:57 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Constant decrease of the original mass maybe? Not a great explosion, but an implosion.
If by decrease you mean increasing density, then sure, sounds plausible to me. But like I said, I'm no expert on universal origins. I tend to stick to evolution
exlude is offline  
post #28 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 12:59 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
There are a number of theories as to where the energy came from to cause the outward momentum. I'm no Steven Hawking and cannot go into good detail for you. However, one common element of these theories is that the energy for it always existed...it just took a certain collaboration or build up of these energies to cause a significant event.
Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.
Fastback is offline  
post #29 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:02 PM
not exclude
 
exlude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Right. The science community just entertains no "theory" of Creator.
I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".
exlude is offline  
post #30 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:03 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
All you have to do is just start with a partical horizon and work your way backward mathmatically, given you know the distance you see the edge of the expanding universe for sure.
Denny is offline  
post #31 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:09 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by exlude
I wouldn't say the idea isn't entertained. The discussions I have had with people it normally remains a possibility, but it isn't going to be an instant answer for most.

I, personally, choose to believe there is no god. Call it a gut feeling, but I'd rather find the physical answer. Nevertheless it's a choice, most theoretical physicists will state it the same way if they state a "belief".
It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
Fastback is offline  
post #32 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:10 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
It is often that a theory remains until disproven. I have not seen this with God. I realize that some scientists believe God. But almost ALL of science believed Darwin.... until recently. If science gave God a chance like it gave Darwin.... who knows ?
It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.
Denny is offline  
post #33 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:14 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
We can jump light years ahead looking through things like the Hubbel Telescope. I'm sure any outward movement seen around the "edge of the univese" happened well before the telescope was even a thought.


Intersting that you mentioned this in that way. I have had this wacked out theory of travel using refracted light as a path. Given the fact that we are simply looking at light being absorbed into matter for what we actually see, plus, the distance in which we can see with a telescope, and how fast light travels......ouch.....my brain just went on vacation for that type of thought. I'll be sticking with philosophy and welding for today.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #34 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:15 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
It's too convenient for modern science and no matter how much proof you can dig up, it'll always require some faith. Scientists don't like the "F" word.
Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL
Fastback is offline  
post #35 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:18 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Intersting that you mentioned this in that way. I have had this wacked out theory of travel using refracted light as a path. Given the fact that we are simply looking at light being absorbed into matter for what we actually see, plus, the distance in which we can see with a telescope, and how fast light travels......ouch.....my brain just went on vacation for that type of thought. I'll be sticking with philosophy and welding for today.
But time and what you see are two different things. You can look into the past, but not be there.
Denny is offline  
post #36 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:19 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Good point, thanks for calming me down. Might right click isn't working today and I'm uppity. LOL
Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.
Denny is offline  
post #37 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:30 PM
 
Murph Tang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,843
Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?

Murph

1992 Taurus Half-Breed
whining alternator pulley

Domestic with an Import heart.
Murph Tang is offline  
post #38 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:32 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murph Tang
Brian says everything must have a beginning.....thus a start.

Is there a specific beginning or has this universe always existed?
If you go with a Steady State Theory, it has no beginning or end, even though it constantly changes.
Denny is offline  
post #39 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:35 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
But time and what you see are two different things. You can look into the past, but not be there.

Dang, that sounds much simpler than what I was attempting to say. I guess I was trying to sound smarter than I are.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #40 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:37 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Dang, that sounds much simpler than what I was attempting to say. I guess I was trying to sound smarter than I are.
That's just me... I can dumb almost anything down
Denny is offline  
post #41 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 01:54 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Mine wasn't earlier either. I rebooted and everything is cool. Weird that that happens the same day as someone else and has never happened to me before.
Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:

If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?
Fastback is offline  
post #42 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:11 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:

If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?


Your theory would seem to hold true if it could be tested. I've had similar thoughts as yours.

Sending light photons into the past sounds very difficult. You have intrigued me sir. I believe I will be putting down the welder to look into this.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #43 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:14 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
You'd create a black hole. Not only that, but you'd need even more force to stop it. Not only THAT, but how would you stop it if you couldn't get past the event horizon?
Denny is offline  
post #44 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:15 PM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastback
Yeah, my adobe acrocrap is hanging up and causing my right click to wig out. But my computer takes 10 minutes to boot now?? So I hate the restart. It's always a hide and watch event.

As far as seeing into the past, I think this "universe" of ours is a generator of "time" among other things. I once pondered it until I got a brain cramp. My cramp resulted in this thunk:


If we were to travel faster than light, we could "stop" amidst the movement of orbiting and propelling through space etc., thus stopping out involvement in the space/time continuum. We could stop time. Just a theory.

Recently though, some scientist sent light photons back in time or something.... anyone familiar with this?
I think you may be talking about teleportation, which you can read about here:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/b...hes-205448.php


BTW, fastback, have you opened your config and changed your startup options to cut down on all that time?


The fact is Brian is that from an atheist standpoint, your question has no "answer" per se, because even the big bang theory started somewhere with dense material. (One of the most ridiculous theories around IMO).

So I don't think that you will get an answer, but then again, I think that was probably your point.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #45 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:23 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Have you guys heard of CERN's collider?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
Denny is offline  
post #46 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:24 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
You'd create a black hole. Not only that, but you'd need even more force to stop it. Not only THAT, but how would you stop it if you couldn't get past the event horizon?

I have often wondered when we will figure out how to use black holes for time travel. They have to go somewhere.


There is evidently quite a few people trying to see how light photons communicate with one another in their quest for sending photons to the past. Perceivably, this would allow you to recieve a message miliseconds before you send it.

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #47 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:32 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
I have often wondered when we will figure out how to use black holes for time travel. They have to go somewhere.


There is evidently quite a few people trying to see how light photons communicate with one another in their quest for sending photons to the past. Perceivably, this would allow you to recieve a message miliseconds before you send it.
Assuming that the photons aren't altered once they pass.
Denny is offline  
post #48 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:39 PM
Rambling Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Not all who wander are lost
Posts: 10,985
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Assuming that the photons aren't altered once they pass.

Seeing as light photons can be either waves or particles, I have started wondering if they change at a boundary of the space/time continuum. If there is a boundary at all. This could be the boundary that would keep us from changing time deminsions. If we were to try, then maybe we would be broken down to waves and particles, only to be re-distributed as light.

Heh....A different spin on reincarnation

FUCK CANADA AND THEIR BULLSHIT WAYS
Muffrazr is offline  
post #49 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:46 PM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffrazr
Seeing as light photons can be either waves or particles, I have started wondering if they change at a boundary of the space/time continuum. If there is a boundary at all. This could be the boundary that would keep us from changing time deminsions. If we were to try, then maybe we would be broken down to waves and particles, only to be re-distributed as light.

Heh....A different spin on reincarnation
Given that we could withstand the massive gravitational force. Physical life wouldn't make it, I'm sure.
Denny is offline  
post #50 of 100 (permalink) Old 10-31-2007, 02:55 PM
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 674
I rebooted my computer. I am back now. LOL. It is hanging up in the BIOS screen failing to quickly launch Windows Xp for some unknown.
I am searching the internet now about Time travel, and the more I think about it, I believe I misspoke earlier. I think it was sound waves that some scientist at a major university sent back into time but only like 5 seconds (not photons). I can't find it on the WWW... atleast not yet. I guess I will shut up when I am not sure.
Fastback is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome