|
Post by clareabel on Dec 1, 2009 4:26:13 GMT -5
dlectronic, I don't even have a clue what you're trying to say...
Souls Inferno- That's part of what a singularity is, and that's why the singularity which I believe was the "starting point" for the universe could make a universe (as it had infinite thermal energy, it could convert this into mass and kinetic energy)
Again, I'm not an astrophysicist, so apologies if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 2, 2009 1:47:10 GMT -5
dlectronic, I don't even have a clue what you're trying to say... I didn't think I was being so unclear. Guess i was wrong. "What is a singularity" was my question, but you have answered it through your words to souls inferno.
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Dec 2, 2009 3:25:59 GMT -5
I answered what a singularity was in a previous post- all I was saying to Souls Inferno was how that related to mass/kinetic energy. The bit that confused me most was your reminder that you weren't a science buff- no offence but it's really really obvious that you wiki most of your knowledge But seriously.... heat isn't a singularity. It never is. Infinite heat is one of the properties of a singularity, but that's not the same as saying that non-infinite heat isn't a singularity. That just doesn't make sense. I didn't suggest that thermal energy is finite- in fact, I suggested the opposite. It is other factors, such as gravitational force, which will stop the universe's expansion.
|
|
|
Post by Muffy on Dec 2, 2009 5:42:49 GMT -5
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularityI honestly have no idea where else to look to define what you mean by "singularity" First I have no idea what your defintion of a singularity is. Second, what does that have to do with thermal energy/heat... still confused about your explanation. Third, I need to go back and read where this all started because I have forgotten. Fourth, shiv's reaction is still echoing in my mind about this.
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Dec 2, 2009 8:56:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 3, 2009 0:17:41 GMT -5
no offence but it's really really obvious that you wiki most of your knowledge Of course. I already said that I'm looking this stuff up as we discuss. Would you rather me pretend that I am some knowledgeable physicist or something? I just think that the subject is pretty fascinating...So I'm trying to learn more. It seems that the more I look into the question of origins form a physics standpoint, the more I'm seeing the necessity for a creator of our universe.
|
|
|
Post by clareabel on Dec 3, 2009 6:25:35 GMT -5
I'm trying to see where the argument is and failing. So I'm just going to give up...
|
|
|
Post by alastairjohnjack on Dec 3, 2009 7:34:29 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that the argument is - you can't not believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 3, 2009 7:40:16 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure that the argument is - you can't not believe in God. Even Brent?
|
|
|
Post by notavailable on Dec 3, 2009 15:48:49 GMT -5
Not even King Donkey Penis can save Brent now.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Dec 3, 2009 16:49:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dlectronic on Dec 4, 2009 1:50:16 GMT -5
I'm trying to see where the argument is and failing. So I'm just going to give up... Now you have got me confused...You and agree on this issue. If I say green is green, how is that confusing? The statement I propose is, "how can one honestly approach physics and not admit the logical necessity for a higher power?" I fail to say how that is in any way an ambiguous statement.
|
|