That's a big part of the problem. What is easier to believe isn't necessarily true. It was easy to believe in santa, harder to understand that my folks bought presents with their job-money, shopped while I was at school, wrapped them while I was asleep and placed them under the tree before I awoke....aww, that's boring, Thanks Santa!
6/21/2006 7:05:44 AM
Scientists made the transistors you just used to make an idiot of yourself in public.
4/1/2011 10:55:08 AM
DOES NOT COMPUTE...
ENTERING L.O.L. MODE...
5, 15, 95. 100%...
4/1/2011 11:38:50 AM
They've never defined the singularity, it could have been a light year across, it was all or nearly all the mass/energy of the universe
Even Hawking doubts they'll sort out the physics of the singularity, as all known physics would fail under such conditions.
The "no width, height nor depth" comment is creationist nonsense, the science actually suggest up to eleven dimensions
4/2/2011 7:51:30 AM
Because what is easy to believe must be true, right?
Right there you have highlighted one of most religions' fundamental flaws. For everything it cannot explain or understand, it just makes some kindergarten-grade crap up.
4/2/2011 11:34:16 AM
Bizarrely, this gave me a good hearty laugh.
Pardon me if I revert to being 10 years old for a moment while I laugh at the concept of a fart imploding on itself.
6/10/2011 4:05:55 PM
> They've never defined the singularity, it could have been a light year across, it was all or nearly all the mass/energy of the universe
> Even Hawking doubts they'll sort out the physics of the singularity, as all known physics would fail under such conditions.
The relevant conditions which Hawking and many others talk about occur when the singularity (any singularity) is dealt with at the quantum scale. When you mention it (presumably this is the Big Bang, given your reference to the mass/energy of the Universe) being a light year across I think it's more likely that you're attempting to define its event horizon, but even then I think you're confusing this with a normal black hole as opposed to something which encompassed all of space-time. Which isn't to say that it didn't have an event horizon, just that that would extend to the then-limit of the Universe until hyperinflation took over.
If I understand it correctly. Which I probably don't. Just trying to help...
6/10/2011 5:01:13 PM
A singularity is simply the point at which a mathematical equation tells us there should be a zero. It could be a portal into unknown realms, or it could be a mathematical limit that confines our understanding to the purely "physical".
You could say God did create the Universe, but it would depend on your definition of God. You could say the source of the energy of the Big Bang was "God". If you take the word "God" as meaning source or creator then there is a logic to it. But the version of God you are talking about is the one in the Bible, which is totally irrelevant to the creation of the Universe.
6/10/2011 5:15:37 PM
Exactly, not defined, the event horizon being everything within it's influence and considered part of it.
They can't sort out it's centre as it's damn near still best described as the mother of all black holes. Nor the point of saturation in which it's forced to expand, there's a tipping point when the energy must stop contracting and blow out, this force probably crosses dimensions.
6/11/2011 4:28:14 AM
I'm going to put this out there again (I check back on posts so if anyone can help me please do)
Our universe is moving out and picking up speed (this apparently has been established) which confuses the best in the field. The singularity can't be all the mass in our universe as that would be too damn godlike convinent.
Question: Has any scientest suggested that only half or a quarter of the universe mass could trigger a Big Bang? the rest maybe just beyond the event horizon or near free of it's influence?
6/11/2011 4:33:54 AM