Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Hah, this is simple.

God, is something humans created to explain what they can't easily explain.

At 9/19/07 03:56 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 9/18/07 03:48 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote:

That's not completely true. We have the ability to know what happened before the big bang. It's before t=0 that we may have a problem with. The big bang was the very rapid expansion of spacetime and matter. It wasn't the begging of the universe.

That's what I meant before the big bang was sparked.

As for the laws of physics existing before t=0, well that really depends on whether or not anything existed before t=0.

No. There is no reason to believe science can't answer it.

You misunderstand me I know that science will answer those questions, some day, sadly that day has yet to arrive.

Well yes it can. The phenomenon is know as quantum fluctuations, and allows for matter and energy to come into existence for brief periods of time with out violating conservation of matter and energy. The only stipulation is that they need to fade from existence after a very short period of time (on the order of a plank second). But there are various phenomenon, and events in the universe in which they would be able to continue to exist. Basically it all stems from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: (delta x)(delta p) >= hbar/2.

True in quantum theory that something happens, but if you consider membrane and multi-universe theory then that can be explained and you still have a source.

No. Membrane and multi-vers have nothing to do with quantum fluctuations. They're ideas used to help explain wave collapse. This is a completely different phenomenon.

Yes but in multi universe theory the creation of energy and the loss of knowledge is explained because every electron exists in a different way in each universe so in other words the energy or mater phases from one to another. However that's just one interpretation. Also I question the relevance of temporary mater creation in regards to the big bang which is only temporary in relation to galactic timeframes.

Not really, because now you simply have something else to debate. When you take into account that there isn't any tangible evidence for the existence of a god such a hypotheses is useless and answers nothing.

Not from a scientific stand point but it is from a philosophical point of view (I consider myself both).

I am not saying there is a god I am making the point "what if" it's simply a statement for discussion not conversion or anything.

It's possible that patches do, but not the whole thing. It would take longer then the existence of the universe for a signal to propagate from one edge to the other, so no.

That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge after all we know far less that we don't know. I for one can't wait for the discovery of dark matter I mean we know its there yet we don't have any and cants seam to even detect it. Its also possibly matter with know atomic structure which is a completely new concept perhaps it can form a sort of intelligence. Also what of singularities they warp the laws of physics themselves why not time? We know that they effect time in there area but do they have any distant effects? They may they may not never underestimate the possibility for counter intuitive discoveries. I must stress this is simply a "what if" question.

Except no religious group can agree on who was and wasn't a profit. Whit out clear information such an idea is unsupportable.

Correct but in my opinion that demonstrates a problem with human nature and not the idea itself. Further more I find the possibility interesting in that it razes many questions about: the nature of the world, human nature, religion, and the universe itself.

Also in another note I am beginning to thing that a political forum isn't a good place to have philosophical discussions. I wonder could newgrounds make a philosophical forum? I think it would be a good idea as most philosophical discussions are attacked as if they were statements and not questions but that's just my opinion.

A person's idea of God varries from culture to culture, and for the most part reflects our cultural existance.

Take a look at the gods of the various cultures they are alloted to, learn about they're cultures... Gods are culture.

The best example i can give at this time is how egyptian gods reflected the concept of Agricultural life cycles.

These are gods.

At 9/19/07 08:14 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge

They most certainly do. I'm glad you brought up non-locality because it's actually at the very core of the philisophical side of quantum mechanics. I'm actually reading a book called 'Schrodinger's Kittens' byJohn Gribbin at the moment. It explains a lot of the principles of quantum mechanics in simple terms, so it's a very accessible book. It's actually a sequel to 'In Search of Schrodinger's Cat'. I'm sure you've heard of Schrodinger's cat, so I'll now just briefly explain the kittens.
There are two kittens in seperate compartments of a space ship. A single electron is released in between the two compartments and can only go into one, of course. Upon release of the electron, the two compartments divide and head in opposite directions across the universe. Now, from what we understand about quantum physics, a probability wave of 50% fills either compartment. It is only when one compartment crash lands on a planet with concious observers and the cat is observed either dead or alive, that the other cat's state is also determined. But both wave-functions collapse simultaneously, no matter what the distance across the universe. This implies that one has knowledge of the other and that some signal has somehow crossed space-time faster than the speed of light, which is impossible, of course, but this is exactly what does happen. Perhaps not on the scale of cats, but certainly on the quantum scale, down at the level of particles.
So, a concious universe need not defy any laws of physics. In fact, it is even sort of implied by this quantum phenomena. Perhaps every particle in the universe is "aware" of the collapsed state of other particles, thus the universe would be an entity that is actually quite aware of itself and thus concious.
This isn't my belief, exactly. I do believe that the universe only exists because we are looking at it. Thus, I support the Copenhagen interpretation. However, there is a problem with this theory. It would mean that the universe comes from the human's perception, rather than from a big bang but where did the first human come from? Under the Copenhagen interpretation, we just sort of exist and everything around us comes into being when we look at it which sounds ridiculous and contradicts my other belief, that the universe is a concious entity.
In order to rectify this problem, I propose that the universe is a concious entity but that it isn't concious of it's true state. Instead, it inhabits a dream world. In this dream world it could be a human, a dolphin or something alien to us. I like to think it is dreaming that it's human, though, because I like the idea that if a universe can be concious, perhaps our concious minds can be universes of their own. So in this sense, the universe is an infinite fractal. We are each a universe inhabiting a shared imaginary world known as the universe, which lives in an imaginary world of it's own which could also be concious... and so it continues forever.
By accepting this idea, it is no longer a problem that the universe only exists when we look at it. This merely represents the growth of the universe. The more we know about the universe, as a species, the more it knows about itself. Perhaps we only understand things because of people inside our minds coming to better understanding of things.... And so the universe grows and grows and learns more about itself and the "imaginary" universe it inhabits and in turn, that universe learns more about itself and the universe it inhabits and so on. In a manner of speaking, each concious entity is merely a brain-cell inside of another brain. (But you ought to understand I don't actually mean a physical brain cell and a physical brain)
It may seem like a bizzare theory and I've actually only just developed it at this moment, so I may yet find some flaw in it. For now, though, I really like it because it suggests only the mind truely exists, which I do believe. It was a few months ago that I decided that only the mind existed and it made me feel incredibly alone. I thought if only the mind exists, then only my mind can exist. Then I found the many-minds theory and it saved me from that paranoia. Now I've developed this new understanding.
I find it incredibly important to always be developing our understandings of things, which is one reason why I dislike religion. Religion seems to be at a stand-still. The true answers don't come from one idea that you grasp at, refusing to let go. The true answers come from prying further and further into the evidence and from developing new ideas. That's why I dislike the religious ideas of gods. I do like Buddhism, though, because it gives people freedom of thought and encourages spiritual development.

At 9/20/07 07:05 AM, Schmut wrote:

At 9/19/07 08:14 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge

They most certainly do.

No it doesn't. Damn I should have replied before some one brought this up. This is a sever misinterpretation of quantum entanglement and wave collapse.
*sigh* let me highlight a few points:

I'm glad you brought up non-locality because it's actually at the very core of the philisophical side of quantum mechanics.

People use and abuse QM mainly because ether they don't understand it or they know that most people don't. A good 95-99% of philosophy that deals with quantum mechanics is false.

Now, from what we understand about quantum physics, a probability wave of 50% fills either compartment.

You have the right math, but the wrong idea. All the electron is, is a probability wave. It doesn't matter what it is you studying or working with, all particles, hell all objects are just probability waves.

It is only when one compartment crash lands on a planet with concious observers and the cat is observed either dead or alive, that the other cat's state is also determined.

First off an observer dose not have to be conscious, a rock could be an observer. An observer is merely some operator in QM which effects an object by interacting with it.

This implies that one has knowledge of the other and that some signal has somehow crossed space-time faster than the speed of light, which is impossible, of course, but this is exactly what does happen.

No. no knowledge or information is transmitted between the two objects. This is a gross, yet all to common, misunderstanding of QM.

So, a concious universe need not defy any laws of physics.

Yes it dose. Information can not be transmitted FTL. QM obeys this rule.

In fact, it is even sort of implied by this quantum phenomena.

No it isn't.

This isn't my belief, exactly. I do believe that the universe only exists because we are looking at it. Thus, I support the Copenhagen interpretation. However, there is a problem with this theory. It would mean that the universe comes from the human's perception, rather than from a big bang but where did the first human come from? Under the Copenhagen interpretation, we just sort of exist and everything around us comes into being when we look at it which sounds ridiculous and contradicts my other belief, that the universe is a concious entity.

Your supporting information is wrong and so is this. I'm sorry but your are misinterpreting QM, it dose not support this idea, or any other idea on religion that I'm aware of.

I find it incredibly important to always be developing our understandings of things,

I agree, and I applaud you for thinking, but like I said the foundation of your current concept is wrong. Don't give up though, like I said many people don't understand this stuff, and at lest now you have a firmer footing.

At 9/20/07 08:13 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Something.

Alright, I accept that a rock could be an observer but the Copenhagen interpretation does suggest that the wave-function only collapses when a concious observer is present. I do know that the electron isn't important. I was only giving a brief version of the thought-experiment put forth in the book, which I admit I haven't yet finished. In fact, I'm still very near to the beginning of the book.
I don't entirely agree with the Copenhagen interpretation, as I have stated.
Anyway, surely matter and energy does behave in ways that defies common knowledge? The wave-particle duality isn't explained within classical physics but we know from experiment that it is true. Photons appear to interfere with themselves. They seem to travel as waves but arrive as particles. These phenomena aren't explained in classical physics and it is only when we go quantum that we understand what is going on. It is the uncertainty principle at work. Perhaps the problem here is the definition of "common knowledge".

I also know that quantum mechanics does obey the rules of relativity in that no signal travels faster than light, but are there not experiments where light seems to break it's own speed-boundary?
Could you give a better explanation of the non-locality effect that seems to occur? I said that it seems as though a signal has travelled faster than light, yet I know this to not be the case. I know of string entanglement and I believe this is what is responsible, but do correct me if I'm wrong. The seemingly faster than light signal is merely string entanglement at work... Something to do with higher dimensions?

Okay, the last thing you said was that the Copenhagen interpretation was wrong as was my supporting evidence. This interpretation, however, still has quite a folloing does it not? And the real truth isn't yet known, is it?
I agree that the Copenhagen interpretation isn't correct. In fact, I believe that is the premise of 'Schrodinger's Kittens'. It has, however, started out with a history of science, so I don't yet know what theory is proposed and I've had to put the book down for the time being to focus on my college work.
You push most of what I said aside without giving any supporting facts of your own. I don't mean to challenge your beliefs as you seem to better understand QM than I do, but could you please give some supporting evidence?

or any other idea on religion that I'm aware of.

Philosphy is not the same thing as religion. I mentioned disliking religion because it is at a stand still. Philosophy, on the other hand, is a continuous process much like science. That is why I enjoy philosophy and science and why I would never consider most religions, with the exception of Buddhism, which I find fascinating.

he/she whom sees the world from an RTS perspective

At 9/20/07 08:43 AM, Schmut wrote:

At 9/20/07 08:13 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Something.

Alright, I accept that a rock could be an observer...

Exactly my point. Its philosophy not religion that I was trying to debate he question of "what is god?" isn't religious at all because all religions tend to not even allow for that question to be asked whereas philosophy exists to debate such question and like science evolve and change in accordance with reason and logic remember "philosophy is the science of truth." I am not saying that any of what I suggested is true so EndGameOmega you have no reason to attack it. if I said that that was fact it would be a religious statement and if that was said I would attack it however what I said was "what if?" it was a question not a statement and one of the most important aspects of science and philosophy is to constantly ask questions by not doing this you make the same mistake that has rendered religion largely irrelevant in the modern world.
After all to definitively say the possibilities of a conscious universe and faster than light travel is impossible is to say we know every thing about physics which is an absurd and ridicules statement. Don't forget less than a few decades ago most scientist refuted plate tectonics, mass extinction, and even the big bang theory.

sigh* i need to start avoding threads like this they make me feel dumb :(

i wouldnt say what i said was narrow-minded id say its trying to find a middle in-between all the other religans.

At 9/18/07 07:33 AM, Hashshashin wrote: Anything that possesses higher powers and is Immortal is what I regard as a god, be it the ancient Greek and Roman gods/goddesses or the Abrahamic God. Anything that is mortal such as Roman Emperors being made into gods is not a real god in my opinion, no matter how much power or influence they had when they were alive, e.g Emperor Augustus.

But neither the norse pantheon nor the egyptian had immortal deities. For example, the norse god Thor (you know, he with the hammer) dies/will die of the poison of the wyrm Jörmungandr.

To me, a god is a supernatural being with powers far superior to that of a human and that is WORSHIPPED. That's the most important aspect to me. And yes, I'd call the biblic devil a god.

To me, a god is a supernatural being with powers far superior to that of a human and that is WORSHIPPED. That's the most important aspect to me. And yes, I'd call the biblic devil a god.

Same here.

Here is something that you might find interesting (or not).

I am a God.

And you can't prove or disprove it.

Ha win

lol

Well, I'm not a religous man, but the way I think of it is: God is a -whatever- created by a religon to comfort people, because onestly alot of people don't want to just die, and if they believe that there is a heaven, then they'll fell comforted and won't have to worry about there death. Sorry if I offended anbody, but, thats my opion.

At 9/26/07 09:17 PM, Brick-top wrote: I am a God.

And you can't prove or disprove it.

Ha win

lol

Actually i can

Scientifically speaking; to proove something in it's entirely isn't true, you only need proove it false once.

"deity or god is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.

Deities assume a variety of forms, but are frequently depicted as having human or animal form. Some faiths and traditions consider it blasphemous to imagine or depict the deity as having any concrete form. They are usually immortal. They are commonly assumed to have personalities and to possess consciousness, intellects, desires, and emotions much like humans.
"

You don't fit this category, if you don't agree i'll break it down 1 by 1 as to why i KNOW you can't fit this description; even though i don't know you.

Since you're not postulated to begin with, you're obviously human. [or AI if you want to leave all posibilities open]

At 9/26/07 09:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Since you're not postulated to begin with, you're obviously human. [or AI if you want to leave all posibilities open]

How do you mean he's not postulated? Sorry if it's just my bad English, I'm from Sweden, but doesn't postulated mean that you just assume that he exists? Don't you? Our existance isn't really proved, it's just assumed since life would be very difficult if we believed that we didn't exist.

Chuck Norris

At 9/26/07 09:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 9/26/07 09:17 PM, Brick-top wrote: I am a God.

And you can't prove or disprove it.

Ha win

lol

Actually i can

That's blasphemy! I condemn you to hell.

Did you notice the 'lol'?

The latter might exist

At 9/27/07 12:14 PM, Brick-top wrote:

That's blasphemy! I condemn you to hell.

Did you notice the 'lol'?

I think he doesn't realise he can't disprove you're a God.

Seriously, try. If God has all the powers, then why couldn't he hide himself on the internet? How could anyone possibly ever prove I can't make the earth explode right this second?
Plus, DON'T TEMPT THE LORD OMG

At 9/17/07 03:20 PM, Me-Patch wrote: I think whatever created the universe and everything in it is God, wether it is active in our lives, aware of our existance, or aware of the existance of the universe itself, or even a self aware being, are the questions that interests me.

That's deep.
But I agree.

:That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge after all we know far less that we don't know. I for one can't wait for the discovery of dark matter I mean we know its there yet we don't have any and cants seam to even detect it. Its also possibly matter with know atomic structure which is a completely new concept perhaps it can form a sort of intelligence. Also what of singularities they warp the laws of physics themselves why not time? We know that they effect time in there area but do they have any distant effects? They may they may not never underestimate the possibility for counter intuitive discoveries. I must stress this is simply a "what if" question.

Psst...there are these wonderous things called black holes that follow almost everything that you just said. And Dark matter has been discovered otherwise we wouldn't know the name or what exactly it does and how it wanders from our signals we send at it. Anyway a black hole does have a singularity that apparantly has zero mass and zero density and physics breaks down when one crosses the event horizon of one(God help that poor soul who is the first one to do that)but more importantly a black hole is evidence that thing or objects can be faster than the speed of light which is a great step for man.

But on top of that black holes may(Still a theory)able to act such as a worm-hole does and spit out matter in another point in the universe.

At 9/28/07 06:30 AM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge after all we know far less that we don't know. I for one can't wait for the discovery of dark matter I mean we know its there yet we don't have any and cants seam to even detect it. Its also possibly matter with know atomic structure which is a completely new concept perhaps it can form a sort of intelligence. Also what of singularities they warp the laws of physics themselves why not time? We know that they effect time in there area but do they have any distant effects? They may they may not never underestimate the possibility for counter intuitive discoveries. I must stress this is simply a "what if" question.

Psst...there are these wonderous things called black holes that follow almost everything that you just said. And Dark matter has been discovered otherwise we wouldn't know the name or what exactly it does and how it wanders from our signals we send at it. Anyway a black hole does have a singularity that apparantly has zero mass and zero density and physics breaks down when one crosses the event horizon of one(God help that poor soul who is the first one to do that)but more importantly a black hole is evidence that thing or objects can be faster than the speed of light which is a great step for man.

But on top of that black holes may(Still a theory)able to act such as a worm-hole does and spit out matter in another point in the universe.

(Whoopies my bad forgot the other colon set)

At 9/28/07 06:31 AM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

At 9/28/07 06:30 AM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

That maybe but don't forget Einstein's "spooky actions at a distance" its possible that some energy or even mater can behave in ways that defy common knowledge after all we know far less that we don't know. I for one can't wait for the discovery of dark matter I mean we know its there yet we don't have any and cants seam to even detect it. Its also possibly matter with know atomic structure which is a completely new concept perhaps it can form a sort of intelligence. Also what of singularities they warp the laws of physics themselves why not time? We know that they effect time in there area but do they have any distant effects? They may they may not never underestimate the possibility for counter intuitive discoveries. I must stress this is simply a "what if" question.

Psst...there are these wonderous things called black holes that follow almost everything that you just said.

Well it is true black holes push our understanding of physics to the limit. But the

And Dark matter has been discovered otherwise we wouldn't know the name or what exactly it does and how it wanders from our signals we send at it.

Uh, we can't send signals to dark matter, or at lest we haven't. Even if we did we could only send EM radiation at it and since dark matter obviously isn't effected by the electro magnetic force we would have a very hard time interpreting any data we got back. No to mention it would take centuries at best to get anything back

We do know dark matter exist, we can even see it's effects on the surrounding spacetime, but we don't know what it is, or through which forces it interacts (beyond gravity at lest).

Anyway a black hole does have a singularity that apparantly has zero mass and zero density and physics breaks down when one crosses the event horizon of one

No. While it was though for a long time that black holes have singularities in them, recent theories remove this possibility. Additionally a singularity would have infinite density and a mass proportional to the Schwarzschild radius nether of which is zero.

(God help that poor soul who is the first one to do that)but more importantly a black hole is evidence that thing or objects can be faster than the speed of light which is a great step for man.

Where are you getting this information from? Black holes don't prove FTL anything. In fact they do the opposite, namely they reinforce general relativity, which forbids FTL.

But on top of that black holes may(Still a theory)able to act such as a worm-hole does and spit out matter in another point in the universe.

It's not a theory. There is no theory or even a valid hypothesis for a black hole to form or attach it self to a worm hole and it's quite likely that worm holes don't even exist.

At 9/28/07 06:54 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: We do know dark matter exist, we can even see it's effects on the surrounding spacetime, but we don't know what it is, or through which forces it interacts (beyond gravity at lest).

Alright, I'm counting my chickens before they've hatched here but I think the latest is that dark matter may not exist, after all.
I saw an article on it in the latest edition of New Scientist. Haven't bought that yet, but from reading titles alone it seems that new possibilities are emerging that suggest dark matter may not exist. Obviously, we know something must be having the effect we expect from dark matter, but we no longer know whether dark matter is the substance responsible for it.

Here, I found the article online. I can't read all of it because I'm not subscribed but here's part of it with a link to the site:

Though we can't see it, dark matter is supposed to make up 22 per cent of the universe. Now it turns out it might not exist at all.

Earlier this year, the discovery of a ring-like astronomical feature, invisible except for the way its gravity distorts background galaxies, was hailed as proof for the existence of dark matter and the death knell for a rival theory known as modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND). Not so, claims the father of MOND. "MOND perfectly explains the ring," says Mordehai Milgrom of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. "In fact, it explains it more naturally than dark matter."

At 9/28/07 06:54 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 9/28/07 06:31 AM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

At 9/28/07 06:30 AM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

Well it is true black holes push our understanding of physics to the limit. But the

And Dark matter has been discovered otherwise we wouldn't know the name or what exactly it does and how it wanders from our signals we send at it.

Uh, we can't send signals to dark matter, or at lest we haven't. Even if we did we could only send EM radiation at it and since dark matter obviously isn't effected by the electro magnetic force we would have a very hard time interpreting any data we got back. No to mention it would take centuries at best to get anything back

Actually they send weak signals back which are well very very weak signals at that but still a signal is a signal and we have *tried* to send signals to them they just don't react with them except for some weak signals.

We do know dark matter exist, we can even see it's effects on the surrounding spacetime, but we don't know what it is, or through which forces it interacts (beyond gravity at lest).

Anyway a black hole does have a singularity that apparantly has zero mass and zero density and physics breaks down when one crosses the event horizon of one

No. While it was though for a long time that black holes have singularities in them, recent theories remove this possibility. Additionally a singularity would have infinite density and a mass proportional to the Schwarzschild radius nether of which is zero.

I agree with you there but the black hole is shaped like a cone to say and with infinite gravity since a black hole has no escape velocity. On top of that it has zero volume making it have infinite gravity and all that density is crushed into a single sub-atomic space that has infinite denisty thus making it have zero volume which is the core reason why the Black hole has infinite gravity.

Secondly the gravity would have to be crushed into something that has zero volume so basically the singularity is non-existant mathamatical terms but there is point that all the gravity is compacted into some space under infinite gravity but it doesn't mean its not there if the black hole was coned shaped due to the zero volume.

(God help that poor soul who is the first one to do that)but more importantly a black hole is evidence that thing or objects can be faster than the speed of light which is a great step for man.

Where are you getting this information from? Black holes don't prove FTL anything. In fact they do the opposite, namely they reinforce general relativity, which forbids FTL.

But on top of that black holes may(Still a theory)able to act such as a worm-hole does and spit out matter in another point in the universe.

It's not a theory. There is no theory or even a valid hypothesis for a black hole to form or attach it self to a worm hole and it's quite likely that worm holes don't even exist.

Ah I see what your saying and thanks for the correction for one part but you forgot about how time slows down and really a Black hole would serve as a version of a time machine of sorts but a fatal and a nasty one at that. Black holes when slowing down time around the event horizon gives that when you travel down a black hole you are actually going into your future of sorts.

Scattered infomation from here to answer one of your previous questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

At 9/27/07 10:53 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 9/26/07 09:43 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Since you're not postulated to begin with, you're obviously human. [or AI if you want to leave all posibilities open]

How do you mean he's not postulated? Sorry if it's just my bad English, I'm from Sweden, but doesn't postulated mean that you just assume that he exists? Don't you? Our existance isn't really proved, it's just assumed since life would be very difficult if we believed that we didn't exist.

Sorry i meant to say bulleted points. Sometimes the best way to argue with somone is to start with things which everyone know's are true, apply logic to them, and yield a powerfull debate-cake

At 9/28/07 03:33 PM, Lizardcoolz wrote:

At 9/28/07 06:54 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Well it is true black holes push our understanding of physics to the limit. But the
Uh, we can't send signals to dark matter, or at lest we haven't. Even if we did we could only send EM radiation at it and since dark matter obviously isn't effected by the electro magnetic force we would have a very hard time interpreting any data we got back. No to mention it would take centuries at best to get anything back

Actually they send weak signals back which are well very very weak signals at that but still a signal is a signal and we have *tried* to send signals to them they just don't react with them except for some weak signals.

No I'm sorry but we don't. Dark matter doesn't appear to have any electromagnetic components to it. As such it's impossible for any signals (which would surely be E&M based) we might decide to send to it to interact with it. That's ignoring the fact that the closets clumps of dark matter are several hundred light years away.

We do know dark matter exist, we can even see it's effects on the surrounding spacetime, but we don't know what it is, or through which forces it interacts (beyond gravity at lest).

No. While it was though for a long time that black holes have singularities in them, recent theories remove this possibility. Additionally a singularity would have infinite density and a mass proportional to the Schwarzschild radius nether of which is zero.

I agree with you there but the black hole is shaped like a cone to say and with infinite gravity since a black hole has no escape velocity. On top of that it has zero volume making it have infinite gravity and all that density is crushed into a single sub-atomic space that has infinite denisty thus making it have zero volume which is the core reason why the Black hole has infinite gravity.

Hun? I wasn't talking about a black hole or rather event horizon being cone shaped. I was talking about how a singularity can not exist physically, not just mathematically.

Secondly the gravity would have to be crushed into something that has zero volume so basically the singularity is non-existant mathamatical terms but there is point that all the gravity is compacted into some space under infinite gravity but it doesn't mean its not there if the black hole was coned shaped due to the zero volume.

Unless under extreme out side stress a black hole (event horizon) will be spherical or spheroid.

Where are you getting this information from? Black holes don't prove FTL anything. In fact they do the opposite, namely they reinforce general relativity, which forbids FTL.

But on top of that black holes may(Still a theory)able to act such as a worm-hole does and spit out matter in another point in the universe.

It's not a theory. There is no theory or even a valid hypothesis for a black hole to form or attach it self to a worm hole and it's quite likely that worm holes don't even exist.

Ah I see what your saying and thanks for the correction for one part but you forgot about how time slows down and really a Black hole would serve as a version of a time machine of sorts but a fatal and a nasty one at that. Black holes when slowing down time around the event horizon gives that when you travel down a black hole you are actually going into your future of sorts.

No I did say that or at lest implied it. Time dilation comes about through general relativity, which I did mention, and it's not really time travel persay.

Scattered infomation from here to answer one of your previous questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole

I already know how black holes work, but thank you.

Whoa I didn't know I was talking to you Omega I thought I was talking to Schmut but thanks for the corrections and such I greatly appreciate it.

At 9/28/07 06:50 PM, Scheissekopf wrote: I'm an atheist. it seems to me that religions were created as a tool to control the masses... yes, there it is again, brainwashing. so I don't think there is a god, just however the universe was created... time loop anyone?

Well then you've got some right and some wrong there Scheissekopf religion is based off an idea of an entity in the universe or the universe itself according to Omega or Schmut. But religion was made by man and for man thus showing God in an image of the Homo Sapien species while that view can be easily wrong in SO many ways.

Man may twist around a bit what the meaning is of such of God but there doesn't mean you have to focus hate towards organized religion hell some of it is true like the ideas or the concepts of God not all the bullshit other than the details of God.