Religion

[funsounds]

way too much crap to read since the last time i've been active on these forums...

but i'd like to say one thing about cosmologists and theoretical physicists. i'm sort of a physics fan...i've read most of the works of stephen hawking, richard feynman, roger penrose, brian greene, joao magueijo, and other renowned scientists that work to figure out how the world works, where it was, and where it will go...

theres been a lot of incorrect or outdated things about the big bang theory and the nature of matter that have been tossed about here...but i'm not here to nitpick, preciesely because of what i'm about to say...

it's interesting to see what those at the VERY PINNACLE of science, the peer acknowledged LEADERS OF INTELLECT, have to say about their field of study. this is particularly true of hawking and witten...who many many people say may be the two most brilliant, creative, and ingenious minds since the likes of einstein and newton. whether they subscribe to some version of the traditional big bang theory, or string theory, or some off-shoot of string theory such as M-theory, or maybe even the dark horse VSL theory...the minds at the top all say this: in the end, it all comes down to faith...because we do not currently have the means to prove any of these theories...and some feel we many NEVER have the means to prove any of these theories. one of these esteemed gentleman went so far as to say that at the very pinnacle of any scientific field, it's always about faith (and yes, that even includes mathematics which some of these minds are at the forefront of that as well).

so if we're still trying to distinguish between religion and science...on the count of faith, they are no different...

[indigosoul]

"Conjecture" is ussually used in maths and to arrive at a conjecture it has to be based on certain rules, which had already been proven.

What I like about Wikipedia is that it always details all the sources for the information it presents at the bottom of the page. You can find it for every article (Unlike many other online services). So be it the Stanford encyclopedia or Phillosophical dictionary, you will always trace back the information to it's sources.

OK, you like to argue. Got it. Then here:

conjecture
/knjekchr/

• noun an opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information; a guess.

• verb form a conjecture; guess.

— DERIVATIVES conjectural adjective.

— ORIGIN Latin conjectura, from conicere ‘put together in thought’.

From the Oxford dictionary, which I believe is still considered one of the most definitive sources of word definitions out there. As I say, it isn't JUST a mathematical term.

As far as Wikipedia goes, I've been able to click on entries and pull up and editable text box. I assume that anyone can do this? Hence my skepticism about its accuracy as an authoritative source, particularly on highly technical subjects.

And FunSounds is, of course, absolutely correct. Thanks!

[Mish]

OK, you like to argue. Got it. Then here:

conjecture
/knjekchr/

• noun an opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information; a guess.

• verb form a conjecture; guess.

— DERIVATIVES conjectural adjective.

— ORIGIN Latin conjectura, from conicere ‘put together in thought’.

From the Oxford dictionary, which I believe is still considered one of the most definitive sources of word definitions out there. As I say, it isn't JUST a mathematical term.

Okay, so you are saying that OV's theory is not a theory but a guess which has no proof and requires faith to believe in?

Okay, that works for me

Thanks Indi

[indigosoul]

Baby, I know you're asking me to stay
Say please, please, please don't go away
You say I'm giving you the blues
Maybe, huh, you mean every word you say
I can't help but think of yesterday
And another who tied me down to loverboy rules

Before this river becomes an ocean
Before you throw my heart back on the floor
Oh, oh baby I'll reconsider my foolish notion
Well I need someone to hold me but I'll wait for something more

Yes I gotta have faith, ooh I gotta have faith
Because I gotta have faith, faith, faith
I gotta have faith, faith, faith

[Only-virgins]

OV your fact is not a fact. Matter can be created and it can be destroyed.

You are saying Big Bang did happen and then you use the word "Could" to describe it's occurence. Therefore you "Believe" it happened because you obviously don't have the facts to prove it. Isn't that right?

What are you talking about? First understand what I write. I said the big bang happened, it could have just been an "event"...do you know what that means? Matter can be created? create me something, give me an example please.

[Rosebud]

I never knew there were so many argumentative people all in once place!

[Only-virgins]

I never knew there were so many argumentative people all in once place!

Everyone is willing to defend their idea.

[Rosebud]

I know, and I'm loving it. I wish I had more to give about the whole Big Bang Theory, but that's not my specialty area!

[Mish]

What are you talking about? First understand what I write. I said the big bang happened, it could have just been an "event"...do you know what that means? Matter can be created? create me something, give me an example please.

First of all, you are writing AGAINST the Big Bang theory. Because the Big Bang theory clearly states that NOTHING existed prior to the explosion. You are suggesting otherwise and therefore have your own theory that you can not prove that states that universe always existed even prior to Big Bang. What you say is not a science fact and requires faith to believe in. If the thoery you believe in is a science fact then prove it.

How can matter be created? Matter can be created out of energy E = mc (Square)

[Only-virgins]

First of all, you are writing AGAINST the Big Bang theory. Because the Big Bang theory clearly states that NOTHING existed prior to the explosion. You are suggesting otherwise and therefore have your own theory that you can not prove that states that universe always existed even prior to Big Bang. What you say is not a science fact and requires faith to believe in. If the thoery you believe in is a science fact then prove it.

How can matter be created? Matter can be created out of energy E = mc (Square)

Yes, energy occupies the universe, Mass is concentrated energy. Thus you did not create an object, you only formed it from energy. Create me an object out of nothing, no energy, mass, or anything, other wise it is forming. Laws of conservation of energy and mass. I support the big bang as an event, they do not say that absolutly nothing existed. In fact all matter was mathemtically accounted for. The universe was in a hot and dense state prior to the big bang.

[indigosoul]

If the thoery you believe in is a science fact then prove it.

How can matter be created? Matter can be created out of energy E = mc (Square)

Still at it??? Wow. Anyway, you quote the equation, Mish, but OVs point is valid: give an EXAMPLE where matter has been CREATED from energy.

I suspect you haven't actually read Einstein's original paper, so I'll help you: he meant that they are EQUIVALENT. Matter IS energy. Now, energy can come from matter (nuclear reactions) but I'm not aware of matter being CREATED _de novo_ by energy (tho the recent Bose-Einstein matter may fit, not sure, think they're checking). If you know of such an example, I'd certainly be interested.

FYI (both):
[url]http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html[/url]

[Only-virgins]

Still at it??? Wow. Anyway, you quote the equation, Mish, but OVs point is valid: give an EXAMPLE where matter has been CREATED from energy.

I suspect you haven't actually read Einstein's original paper, so I'll help you: he meant that they are EQUIVALENT. Matter IS energy. Now, energy can come from matter (nuclear reactions) but I'm not aware of matter being CREATED _de novo_ by energy (tho the recent Bose-Einstein matter may fit, not sure, think they're checking). If you know of such an example, I'd certainly be interested.

FYI (both):
[url]http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html[/url]

Yes, thanks for providing even extra. The matter "created" will be equal to the energy, I only read were they actually elliminated matter, but later they said that it was do to some collision with anti-matter, I would prefer to leave Quantum physics out of this. It would only add 10 more pages to the thread while coming out with the same concusion lol. And yes, that is what I said, matter is energy. Einstein was a brilliant guy.

[indigosoul]

Still at it??? Wow. Anyway, you quote the equation, Mish, but OVs point is valid: give an EXAMPLE where matter has been CREATED from energy.

I suspect you haven't actually read Einstein's original paper, so I'll help you: he meant that they are EQUIVALENT. Matter IS energy. Now, energy can come from matter (nuclear reactions) but I'm not aware of matter being CREATED _de novo_ by energy (tho the recent Bose-Einstein matter may fit, not sure, think they're checking). If you know of such an example, I'd certainly be interested. (see edit)

FYI (both):
[url]http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/emc2.html[/url]

Edit: I asked my local "expert" (sorry Mish, take it or leave it). Told me about Diracs work in 1932. Apparently the dude converted cosmic rays (energy) into an electron and positron... cool!

[Cybog]

[Mish]

Hey, I never said that you can create matter out of nothing, BUT that matter can be created and destroyed. Please notice the difference.

OV you still haven't proved your theory... Btw, I need not prove anything to you because I am not the one who believes science has the answer to everything. You do and until you have a solid proof for your theories you are believing in them.

...and with these words I take the easy way out to have my dinner

P.S. I can't find proof that matter can be created out of nothing, which corresponds to my own beliefs that Big Bang theory (which suggests that space, time and the universe had a begining in an explosion) is flawed. Interesting argument OV