Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

It does sound like that but no. Read it in a different way.

[Neruz]

There's a difference between the fictionalization of a person and that person being fictional, though.

Well what i meant was the person 'Jesus' described in the Bible did not exist.

[Grakelin]

Actually, if you decide not to have the discussion in the thread, you can't bring the thread to the conclusion that your view is right.

I saw Julius Caesar on a movie called Gladiator once. None of that movie was true. Yet, that doesn't rule out his existence.

[Siquo]

Not quite... The opposite of something is not something.  The opposite of everything is nothing.  If God is everything: In order for God to exist, nothing must exist.

Nitpicker. When I said Everything (with capital E), that is the everything including nothing, as is implied in the rest of the story (either there's no real word for it, or it's implicitly included so they can't be opposites). I used "anything" as opposed to "nothing".
Also, Neruz, vacuums are not empty. There's always background radiation.
True nothingness is as hard to imagine as infinity.

[Neruz]

There's always background radiation.

Not in a true vacuum.

[Andir]

There's always background radiation.

Not in a true vacuum.

Yep, radiation, like any form of energy needs a medium to transfer.

Nitpicker. When I said Everything (with capital E), that is the everything including nothing, as is implied in the rest of the story (either there's no real word for it, or it's implicitly included so they can't be opposites).

So we are making up more stuff... ugh.

[Osmosis Jones]

There's always background radiation.

Not in a true vacuum.

Yep, radiation, like any form of energy needs a medium to transfer.

Wut? One of the defining experiments of the 20th century was the proof that light, like all electromagnetic radiation, needs no medium in which to propagate. Google Michelson-Morley sometime.

[G-Flex]

There's always background radiation.

Not in a true vacuum.

I'm honestly not sure what gives you the impression that electromagnetic radiation can't traverse a vacuum; it very, very clearly can. This is standard physics here. It doesn't require a medium of any sort of matter.

(edit)
blah blah ninja blah

[Micro102]

well since the universe endlessly expands outward there has to be some point where nothing exists.

[Grakelin]

Unless it's a sphere.

EDIT: Though, if all matter is attracted to eachother, wouldn't that mean there is something the universe is drifting apart towards?

[Neruz]

There's always background radiation.

Not in a true vacuum.

I'm honestly not sure what gives you the impression that electromagnetic radiation can't traverse a vacuum; it very, very clearly can. This is standard physics here. It doesn't require a medium of any sort of matter.

(edit)
blah blah ninja blah

I didn't say that electromagnetic radiation cannot traverse a vacuum, i said that a true vacuum is completely empty of everything.

A vacuum is a space entirely devoid of matter. Remembering that under certain interpretations of physics, matter and energy are interchangible, a true vacuum would therefore be a space entirely devoid of everything, thus; nothing.

[MrWiggles]

Unless it's a sphere.

EDIT: Though, if all matter is attracted to eachother, wouldn't that mean there is something the universe is drifting apart towards?

No its expanding due to the Big Bang momentum.

[Siquo]

A vacuum is a space entirely devoid of matter. Remembering that under certain interpretations of physics, matter and energy are interchangible, a true vacuum would therefore be a space entirely devoid of everything, thus; nothing.

nothing != not matter.
First of all there's time in there. And space. And second, a "true perfect vacuum" (you seem to be making things up as well) like you describe has never been found in this universe. Like I said, it's really hard to imagine something that is less than infinitessimally (sp?) small, or something as big as or bigger than infinity.

Right, since I decided by myself that everyone in this thread is right about God, and noone is wrong, even though that seems contradictionary (but the universe itself seems contradictionary, see QM, so that's ok), I can move on.

Next up: Everyone in this thread that has been trying to use logic, math or physics but failed to do so because of a severe lack of knowledge is going to get his ears washed. Because I like God, but I love Science. Saying that God is false, meh, but using logic and physics in the wrong way really gets on my nerves.

[G-Flex]

Even hard vacuum has weirdass quantum flunctuations going on inside it. It never really stays perfectly still and empty.

[Neruz]

Even hard vacuum has weirdass quantum flunctuations going on inside it. It never really stays perfectly still and empty.

I didn't say hard vacuum. I said perfect vacuum.

First of all there's time in there. And space.

Time and space are often interchangible, and i suspect if you actually did remove all matter and energy from something you'd probably do some seriously screwy shit to time and space. Still, the theory remains sound.

First of all there's time in there. And space. And second, a "true perfect vacuum" (you seem to be making things up as well) like you describe has never been found in this universe

Neither has God, we're dealing with theoreticals here, your point?

Like I said, it's really hard to imagine something that is less than infinitessimally (sp?) small, or something as big as or bigger than infinity.

It's impossible to imagine, the best you can do is consider the concept.

Right, since I decided by myself that everyone in this thread is right about God, and noone is wrong, even though that seems contradictionary (but the universe itself seems contradictionary, see QM, so that's ok), I can move on.

Quantum Mechanics only seems contradictory because we don't understand it, so thankyou for declaring you don't understand this thread. My work here is done.