OBI-WAN KANOBI
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  To start at the beginning. When I was 13, and starting High school, I and the whole auditorium of kids were informed of the makeup of an atom by a guest lecturer, It was explained how the parts of the atom,--Nucleus, Electrons, and Positrons were comparable to our own solar system with comparatively speaking, as much space between the particles as there is between the sun and the planets, thus, if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force, you could pass one thru the other without fear of colision . Thus you could also pass one hand right thru the other. This started me on my road to knowledge.
Further, Science has told us that solids, (matter) is simply energy which has become relatively stationary, thus the mini universes with all their relative space, because of some magnetic force become solid and perhaps a part of our bodies.as fingers, toes, and kidneys.

Maybe on a base level atoms are comparable to a solar system, if you use the Bohr model, which is an inaccurate representation of an atom: the nucleus is considered fairly accurate but the portrayal of electrons is, in so far as I am aware, incorrect.

Furthermore, the magnetic force isn't some obscure entity; we know how it's fields work (to a decent degree).
Also why specific solids as matter? Given the different states of matter (gas, liquid, plasma, solid and all the other states not generally mentioned), differentiating solids from the other states seems pointless.

From that; where'd these "mini universes" come from? They appeared nowhere else in that paragraph and make no sense just popping into existence without prior stipulation.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  At that time it was taught that there were millions of stars in the universe, and many universes Now we know there are untold billions of stars in the universe, and billions of universes. And in the past few years they are finding a multitude of planets around these stars. This is where the first of three unanswerable questions come in.

Who taught you there were many universes? It's a possibility, sure, but such hypotheses have yet to be substantiated, last I checked.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  HOW FAR IS UP” & WHERE ARE WE?

Einstein said that space is curved thus implying it is like a ball. I don't believe that. As we know space, it is between this and that. Beween two walls, then two fields—two towns, , two countries, two planets, two stars, two galaxies. But what is on the other side of that last viewed galaxy ???
a stone wall? another series of galaxies? We simply don't know, and when we arrive at that point, what is on the other side of that? And where are we located.? --In a ball of matter of unimaginable size? And then,of course, where is that ball of mud???

Einstein didn't say that the space is curved; rather the Theory of General Relativity shows that space can be curved via mass. Due to this fact, we can postulate the shape of the universe based on its density.
But it must be said the most popular understanding at the moment is that the universe contains exactly enough mass to eventually stop expansion, meaning the critical and actual density are the same, leading to a flat universe which will slow down over an infinite amount of time.
Of course we are only working with the observable universe; what we've yet to see naturally hasn't been factored in to such postulations.

As for 'what is on the other side': that depends on how far that last galaxy is. The speed of light is a limiter on our understanding; we can only see as far as ~13.8 billion years as that's as far as light has gone since the Big Bang; if indeed there is anything beyond that boundary, we cannot know. At least not yet.

As for where we are; we know that in what is believed to be an effectively infinite flat plain; I see no reason why that should be different were the universe spherical or bent in nature

To the 'ball of mud'.. I don't even know what to do with that...

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  We have also learned that within these atoms (mini solar systems) in a much smaller scale are particles which could (repeat) COULD be be like “ mini micro” solar systems in turn, made up of even smaller particles but similar to our own? Is it possible that our present solar system is simply an atom in a gigantic organism so huge that we can't comprehend? WE JUST DON'T KNOW 

I can't seem to find any references showing that subatomic particles have similar forms to a full atom. They may be comprised by smaller, more elementary particles but I doubt they have a similar structure and can find nothing to substantiate it.

What do you mean, exactly, by "but similar to our own"? We aren't made up of any special atoms. The carbon atoms we contain are exactly the same as all other carbon atoms, same with every other element we contain; so the question makes no sense.

Is it possible that our solar system is an atom in a gigantic organism? I think in this case I will have to lay down an unequivocal 'no' on the question.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the solar system is like an atom. Solar systems have virtually no similarities to atoms, outside of the Bohr atomic model representation of a central point and orbitals: For one; it would make no account for the variation between systems which does not exist in atoms; for instance, it would not be able to account for binary systems; two stars (which would otherwise be comparable to the atomic nuclei) orbiting a common point between them has no comparison as atoms. Or masses which orbit each other without a star? Why would many of the obritals themselves have orbitals? And what of stars without orbiting masses? Why do stars explode where atomic nuclei typically don't?
How would the systems even function in a manner similar to atoms inside said supposed organism? They certainly cannot bind together to form chemical-like structures so how would such an organism even exist if the alleged components cannot function in the manner required?
Solar systems simply do not act in a manner consistent of atoms, which makes it impossible for your supposed organism to exist as per your stipulation.

Additionally; I'd argue that saying that we can't comprehend it's size is indeed showing a form of comprehension.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Science has also informed us that in each of the galaxies there is a so-called black hole that is so dense that even light can't escape.( Thus,it is called a BLACK hole.) Contrary to my own belief, these holes swallow up all matter in it's vicinity to become even larger and denser, and if it
came close enough to this planet, it would eat us up. Hmm! Yet in billions of years we, and the milky way are still here. Further knowledge of the present beliefs concerning black holes lead me to believe that at some point the Black hole becomes unstable, and emits a stream of energy known as a “quazar” It is believed that the stream of energy later slows down and become matter ---which in turn becomes stars and ultimately, with planets.

Of course the Milky Way (and all other galaxies) are still around despite the super-massive Black Holes which inhabit their cores; it's thanks to gravity. Gravity slows down and attracts objects toward it's source, but gravity can only do so much. If an approaching object is moving fast enough to not be sucked in but has been slowed down enough to avoid the escape velocity, it will form an orbit around the gravity source. An orbiting object is simply an object being sucked into a gravitational well with enough momentum to avoid falling entirely. Or as Douglas Adams put it so well "The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."; same principle with orbiting.
The galaxy is just a collection of things orbiting the core, which is not only why the Earth still exists (or indeed even formed to begin with) but also why the Milky Way spins. Thanks to our orbiting position, we move as it moves as well, so it's not like the thing will sneak up on us any time soon.

The energy seen in quasars is not from Black holes emitting energy, but from mass falling onto the accretion disk surrounding the black hole.

The energy projected by black holes probably wouldn't 'slow down' and become matter and then stars. Unless you want to stipulate that energy is hydrogen, which is already matter.
Also, we already know where the matter planets and the like are made of came from; it is formed in the cores of stars. Stars, of course form when enough hydrogen collects to a sufficient density to cause fusion; this hydrogen dates back to near the beginning of the universe.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  The big bang theory suggests that this all started with an exclamation point of nothingless and exploded to become the universe. I do beieive that what might really have happenedwas that there was a multitude of miniature big bangs called quazars, which in our own case created the milky way. To me, that is my original “CREATOR” except that before that there had to be other Galaxies which had black holes which emitted quarzars, etc. thus the 2nd unanswerable question

First: the Big Bang was not an explosion; it was simply the expansion of space. The term 'Big Bang' was coined as term to highlight the difference between it and the competing Steady State model by Fred Hoyle, a BBC radio broadcaster in the late 40's.
Secondly: for the rest of it; we know that's not what happened.

We know the Big Bang was one occurrence, not a multitude of 'quasars'. If I may borrow Steven Hawking's words:
"Up until the 1920s, everyone thought the universe was essentially static and unchanging in time. Then it was discovered that the universe was expanding. Distant galaxies were moving away from us. This meant they must have been closer together in the past. If we extrapolate back, we find we must have all been on top of each other about 15 billion years ago. This was the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe."

Not only do we have the expansion of the universe, which would be inconsistent with your idea, we also have Cosmic Background Radiation; a mass of low-energy microwave radiation found in all directions. The presence of said radiation shows us the time when the expansion of the universe caused it to cool and allowed the formation of the first hydrogen atoms by electrons and protons; it is a snapshot to the beginning of the elements and the universe as we know it today in it's most primordial form.
Had your idea been the case, the CBR would not exist, especially not in the almost uniform state we see it in; the universe would not have cooled in such a manner under your belief and such a radiation blanket would either not exist or be especially strong in the presence of galaxies. It is not.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  ...
I realize that many religous people still believe that God created earth several thousand years ago, but I believe there is an abundance of evidence that it simply isn't true. There are Ruins of structures scientifically dated back as much as twelve thousand years, and many of those ruins and structures are built with such precision that primative man could not have accomplished --such as stonework carving which appear to have been cut by lasers They are so intricly and precisely carved it could only have been done with something like a laser. (But supposedly there was no lasers back then). Throughout the world, there are structures similar in nature to have been planned and designed by the same persons in places of the world so distant and remote as to be literally impossible for our primativesto have raveled there, For instance,some 12 years ago, the remains of a fourth pyramid was discovered, and is now being excavated. One which would have been larger than the so-called Tower of Gisa, and not only was it constructed, it was also destroyed,and most of the massive blocks of stone with which it was constructed have somehow disappeared. ----WHERE?? and HOW??

The claims that many of the ancient structures of the human world could not have been made by human hands have been debunked long ago; indeed in many cases we've been able to replicate structures using primitive tools.

Also; where exactly is this "fourth pyramid"?

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  BUT BEWARE, I will likely upset some of your most cherished Religious beliefs with my future offering such as:

Good luck with that on a board comprised mostly of atheists.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Proof that the world wide flood could not have happened ( to a -more localized area,like the Black sea area, one is likely)

Wont ruffle anybody's feathers here with that. Except maybe if the theotrolls come back.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  That Alien lifeforms are likely here and have been almost forever, and have played agreat role in our development and culture

good luck proving that one.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Most specifically, that the story of Jesus is a near duplicate of the story of a simila rperson and circumstances, referenced in ancient Hebrew texts at least two thousand years before Christ.

'kay.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  And that tho the Bible is a greatsource of history,

No. No it isn't.

It's not even a mediocre source of literary competence.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Free Thought's post
22-11-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
So is the deist done circle jerking in public?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2014, 10:34 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is the deist done circle jerking in public?

We shall see.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2014, 10:46 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
I find this one easy to ignore.
Not even interesting enough to be annoying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2014, 11:47 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  To start at the beginning. When I was 13, and starting High school, I and the whole auditorium of kids were informed of the makeup of an atom by a guest lecturer, It was explained how the parts of the atom,--Nucleus, Electrons, and Positrons were comparable to our own solar system with comparatively speaking, as much space between the particles as there is between the sun and the planets, thus, if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force, you could pass one thru the other without fear of colision . Thus you could also pass one hand right thru the other. This started me on my road to knowledge.
Further, Science has told us that solids, (matter) is simply energy which has become relatively stationary, thus the mini universes with all their relative space, because of some magnetic force become solid and perhaps a part of our bodies.as fingers, toes, and kidneys.

Maybe on a base level atoms are comparable to a solar system, if you use the Bohr model, which is an inaccurate representation of an atom: the nucleus is considered fairly accurate but the portrayal of electrons is, in so far as I am aware, incorrect.

Furthermore, the magnetic force isn't some obscure entity; we know how it's fields work (to a decent degree).
Also why specific solids as matter? Given the different states of matter (gas, liquid, plasma, solid and all the other states not generally mentioned), differentiating solids from the other states seems pointless.

From that; where'd these "mini universes" come from? They appeared nowhere else in that paragraph and make no sense just popping into existence without prior stipulation.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  At that time it was taught that there were millions of stars in the universe, and many universes Now we know there are untold billions of stars in the universe, and billions of universes. And in the past few years they are finding a multitude of planets around these stars. This is where the first of three unanswerable questions come in.

Who taught you there were many universes? It's a possibility, sure, but such hypotheses have yet to be substantiated, last I checked.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  HOW FAR IS UP” & WHERE ARE WE?

Einstein said that space is curved thus implying it is like a ball. I don't believe that. As we know space, it is between this and that. Beween two walls, then two fields—two towns, , two countries, two planets, two stars, two galaxies. But what is on the other side of that last viewed galaxy ???
a stone wall? another series of galaxies? We simply don't know, and when we arrive at that point, what is on the other side of that? And where are we located.? --In a ball of matter of unimaginable size? And then,of course, where is that ball of mud???

Einstein didn't say that the space is curved; rather the Theory of General Relativity shows that space can be curved via mass. Due to this fact, we can postulate the shape of the universe based on its density.
But it must be said the most popular understanding at the moment is that the universe contains exactly enough mass to eventually stop expansion, meaning the critical and actual density are the same, leading to a flat universe which will slow down over an infinite amount of time.
Of course we are only working with the observable universe; what we've yet to see naturally hasn't been factored in to such postulations.

As for 'what is on the other side': that depends on how far that last galaxy is. The speed of light is a limiter on our understanding; we can only see as far as ~13.8 billion years as that's as far as light has gone since the Big Bang; if indeed there is anything beyond that boundary, we cannot know. At least not yet.

As for where we are; we know that in what is believed to be an effectively infinite flat plain; I see no reason why that should be different were the universe spherical or bent in nature

To the 'ball of mud'.. I don't even know what to do with that...

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  We have also learned that within these atoms (mini solar systems) in a much smaller scale are particles which could (repeat) COULD be be like “ mini micro” solar systems in turn, made up of even smaller particles but similar to our own? Is it possible that our present solar system is simply an atom in a gigantic organism so huge that we can't comprehend? WE JUST DON'T KNOW 

I can't seem to find any references showing that subatomic particles have similar forms to a full atom. They may be comprised by smaller, more elementary particles but I doubt they have a similar structure and can find nothing to substantiate it.

What do you mean, exactly, by "but similar to our own"? We aren't made up of any special atoms. The carbon atoms we contain are exactly the same as all other carbon atoms, same with every other element we contain; so the question makes no sense.

Is it possible that our solar system is an atom in a gigantic organism? I think in this case I will have to lay down an unequivocal 'no' on the question.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the solar system is like an atom. Solar systems have virtually no similarities to atoms, outside of the Bohr atomic model representation of a central point and orbitals: For one; it would make no account for the variation between systems which does not exist in atoms; for instance, it would not be able to account for binary systems; two stars (which would otherwise be comparable to the atomic nuclei) orbiting a common point between them has no comparison as atoms. Or masses which orbit each other without a star? Why would many of the obritals themselves have orbitals? And what of stars without orbiting masses? Why do stars explode where atomic nuclei typically don't?
How would the systems even function in a manner similar to atoms inside said supposed organism? They certainly cannot bind together to form chemical-like structures so how would such an organism even exist if the alleged components cannot function in the manner required?
Solar systems simply do not act in a manner consistent of atoms, which makes it impossible for your supposed organism to exist as per your stipulation.

Additionally; I'd argue that saying that we can't comprehend it's size is indeed showing a form of comprehension.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Science has also informed us that in each of the galaxies there is a so-called black hole that is so dense that even light can't escape.( Thus,it is called a BLACK hole.) Contrary to my own belief, these holes swallow up all matter in it's vicinity to become even larger and denser, and if it
came close enough to this planet, it would eat us up. Hmm! Yet in billions of years we, and the milky way are still here. Further knowledge of the present beliefs concerning black holes lead me to believe that at some point the Black hole becomes unstable, and emits a stream of energy known as a “quazar” It is believed that the stream of energy later slows down and become matter ---which in turn becomes stars and ultimately, with planets.

Of course the Milky Way (and all other galaxies) are still around despite the super-massive Black Holes which inhabit their cores; it's thanks to gravity. Gravity slows down and attracts objects toward it's source, but gravity can only do so much. If an approaching object is moving fast enough to not be sucked in but has been slowed down enough to avoid the escape velocity, it will form an orbit around the gravity source. An orbiting object is simply an object being sucked into a gravitational well with enough momentum to avoid falling entirely. Or as Douglas Adams put it so well "The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."; same principle with orbiting.
The galaxy is just a collection of things orbiting the core, which is not only why the Earth still exists (or indeed even formed to begin with) but also why the Milky Way spins. Thanks to our orbiting position, we move as it moves as well, so it's not like the thing will sneak up on us any time soon.

The energy seen in quasars is not from Black holes emitting energy, but from mass falling onto the accretion disk surrounding the black hole.

The energy projected by black holes probably wouldn't 'slow down' and become matter and then stars. Unless you want to stipulate that energy is hydrogen, which is already matter.
Also, we already know where the matter planets and the like are made of came from; it is formed in the cores of stars. Stars, of course form when enough hydrogen collects to a sufficient density to cause fusion; this hydrogen dates back to near the beginning of the universe.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  The big bang theory suggests that this all started with an exclamation point of nothingless and exploded to become the universe. I do beieive that what might really have happenedwas that there was a multitude of miniature big bangs called quazars, which in our own case created the milky way. To me, that is my original “CREATOR” except that before that there had to be other Galaxies which had black holes which emitted quarzars, etc. thus the 2nd unanswerable question

First: the Big Bang was not an explosion; it was simply the expansion of space. The term 'Big Bang' was coined as term to highlight the difference between it and the competing Steady State model by Fred Hoyle, a BBC radio broadcaster in the late 40's.
Secondly: for the rest of it; we know that's not what happened.

We know the Big Bang was one occurrence, not a multitude of 'quasars'. If I may borrow Steven Hawking's words:
"Up until the 1920s, everyone thought the universe was essentially static and unchanging in time. Then it was discovered that the universe was expanding. Distant galaxies were moving away from us. This meant they must have been closer together in the past. If we extrapolate back, we find we must have all been on top of each other about 15 billion years ago. This was the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe."

Not only do we have the expansion of the universe, which would be inconsistent with your idea, we also have Cosmic Background Radiation; a mass of low-energy microwave radiation found in all directions. The presence of said radiation shows us the time when the expansion of the universe caused it to cool and allowed the formation of the first hydrogen atoms by electrons and protons; it is a snapshot to the beginning of the elements and the universe as we know it today in it's most primordial form.
Had your idea been the case, the CBR would not exist, especially not in the almost uniform state we see it in; the universe would not have cooled in such a manner under your belief and such a radiation blanket would either not exist or be especially strong in the presence of galaxies. It is not.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  ...
I realize that many religous people still believe that God created earth several thousand years ago, but I believe there is an abundance of evidence that it simply isn't true. There are Ruins of structures scientifically dated back as much as twelve thousand years, and many of those ruins and structures are built with such precision that primative man could not have accomplished --such as stonework carving which appear to have been cut by lasers They are so intricly and precisely carved it could only have been done with something like a laser. (But supposedly there was no lasers back then). Throughout the world, there are structures similar in nature to have been planned and designed by the same persons in places of the world so distant and remote as to be literally impossible for our primativesto have raveled there, For instance,some 12 years ago, the remains of a fourth pyramid was discovered, and is now being excavated. One which would have been larger than the so-called Tower of Gisa, and not only was it constructed, it was also destroyed,and most of the massive blocks of stone with which it was constructed have somehow disappeared. ----WHERE?? and HOW??

The claims that many of the ancient structures of the human world could not have been made by human hands have been debunked long ago; indeed in many cases we've been able to replicate structures using primitive tools.

Also; where exactly is this "fourth pyramid"?

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  BUT BEWARE, I will likely upset some of your most cherished Religious beliefs with my future offering such as:

Good luck with that on a board comprised mostly of atheists.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Proof that the world wide flood could not have happened ( to a -more localized area,like the Black sea area, one is likely)

Wont ruffle anybody's feathers here with that. Except maybe if the theotrolls come back.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  That Alien lifeforms are likely here and have been almost forever, and have played agreat role in our development and culture

good luck proving that one.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  Most specifically, that the story of Jesus is a near duplicate of the story of a simila rperson and circumstances, referenced in ancient Hebrew texts at least two thousand years before Christ.

'kay.

(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  And that tho the Bible is a greatsource of history,

No. No it isn't.

It's not even a mediocre source of literary competence.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 11:47 PM)doniston Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Maybe on a base level atoms are comparable to a solar system, if you use the Bohr model, which is an inaccurate representation of an atom: the nucleus is considered fairly accurate but the portrayal of electrons is, in so far as I am aware, incorrect.

Furthermore, the magnetic force isn't some obscure entity; we know how it's fields work (to a decent degree).
Also why specific solids as matter? Given the different states of matter (gas, liquid, plasma, solid and all the other states not generally mentioned), differentiating solids from the other states seems pointless.

From that; where'd these "mini universes" come from? They appeared nowhere else in that paragraph and make no sense just popping into existence without prior stipulation.


Who taught you there were many universes? It's a possibility, sure, but such hypotheses have yet to be substantiated, last I checked.


Einstein didn't say that the space is curved; rather the Theory of General Relativity shows that space can be curved via mass. Due to this fact, we can postulate the shape of the universe based on its density.
But it must be said the most popular understanding at the moment is that the universe contains exactly enough mass to eventually stop expansion, meaning the critical and actual density are the same, leading to a flat universe which will slow down over an infinite amount of time.
Of course we are only working with the observable universe; what we've yet to see naturally hasn't been factored in to such postulations.

As for 'what is on the other side': that depends on how far that last galaxy is. The speed of light is a limiter on our understanding; we can only see as far as ~13.8 billion years as that's as far as light has gone since the Big Bang; if indeed there is anything beyond that boundary, we cannot know. At least not yet.

As for where we are; we know that in what is believed to be an effectively infinite flat plain; I see no reason why that should be different were the universe spherical or bent in nature

To the 'ball of mud'.. I don't even know what to do with that...


I can't seem to find any references showing that subatomic particles have similar forms to a full atom. They may be comprised by smaller, more elementary particles but I doubt they have a similar structure and can find nothing to substantiate it.

What do you mean, exactly, by "but similar to our own"? We aren't made up of any special atoms. The carbon atoms we contain are exactly the same as all other carbon atoms, same with every other element we contain; so the question makes no sense.

Is it possible that our solar system is an atom in a gigantic organism? I think in this case I will have to lay down an unequivocal 'no' on the question.
There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that the solar system is like an atom. Solar systems have virtually no similarities to atoms, outside of the Bohr atomic model representation of a central point and orbitals: For one; it would make no account for the variation between systems which does not exist in atoms; for instance, it would not be able to account for binary systems; two stars (which would otherwise be comparable to the atomic nuclei) orbiting a common point between them has no comparison as atoms. Or masses which orbit each other without a star? Why would many of the obritals themselves have orbitals? And what of stars without orbiting masses? Why do stars explode where atomic nuclei typically don't?
How would the systems even function in a manner similar to atoms inside said supposed organism? They certainly cannot bind together to form chemical-like structures so how would such an organism even exist if the alleged components cannot function in the manner required?
Solar systems simply do not act in a manner consistent of atoms, which makes it impossible for your supposed organism to exist as per your stipulation.

Additionally; I'd argue that saying that we can't comprehend it's size is indeed showing a form of comprehension.


Of course the Milky Way (and all other galaxies) are still around despite the super-massive Black Holes which inhabit their cores; it's thanks to gravity. Gravity slows down and attracts objects toward it's source, but gravity can only do so much. If an approaching object is moving fast enough to not be sucked in but has been slowed down enough to avoid the escape velocity, it will form an orbit around the gravity source. An orbiting object is simply an object being sucked into a gravitational well with enough momentum to avoid falling entirely. Or as Douglas Adams put it so well "The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."; same principle with orbiting.
The galaxy is just a collection of things orbiting the core, which is not only why the Earth still exists (or indeed even formed to begin with) but also why the Milky Way spins. Thanks to our orbiting position, we move as it moves as well, so it's not like the thing will sneak up on us any time soon.

The energy seen in quasars is not from Black holes emitting energy, but from mass falling onto the accretion disk surrounding the black hole.

The energy projected by black holes probably wouldn't 'slow down' and become matter and then stars. Unless you want to stipulate that energy is hydrogen, which is already matter.
Also, we already know where the matter planets and the like are made of came from; it is formed in the cores of stars. Stars, of course form when enough hydrogen collects to a sufficient density to cause fusion; this hydrogen dates back to near the beginning of the universe.


First: the Big Bang was not an explosion; it was simply the expansion of space. The term 'Big Bang' was coined as term to highlight the difference between it and the competing Steady State model by Fred Hoyle, a BBC radio broadcaster in the late 40's.
Secondly: for the rest of it; we know that's not what happened.

We know the Big Bang was one occurrence, not a multitude of 'quasars'. If I may borrow Steven Hawking's words:
"Up until the 1920s, everyone thought the universe was essentially static and unchanging in time. Then it was discovered that the universe was expanding. Distant galaxies were moving away from us. This meant they must have been closer together in the past. If we extrapolate back, we find we must have all been on top of each other about 15 billion years ago. This was the Big Bang, the beginning of the universe."

Not only do we have the expansion of the universe, which would be inconsistent with your idea, we also have Cosmic Background Radiation; a mass of low-energy microwave radiation found in all directions. The presence of said radiation shows us the time when the expansion of the universe caused it to cool and allowed the formation of the first hydrogen atoms by electrons and protons; it is a snapshot to the beginning of the elements and the universe as we know it today in it's most primordial form.
Had your idea been the case, the CBR would not exist, especially not in the almost uniform state we see it in; the universe would not have cooled in such a manner under your belief and such a radiation blanket would either not exist or be especially strong in the presence of galaxies. It is not.


The claims that many of the ancient structures of the human world could not have been made by human hands have been debunked long ago; indeed in many cases we've been able to replicate structures using primitive tools.

Also; where exactly is this "fourth pyramid"?


Good luck with that on a board comprised mostly of atheists.


Wont ruffle anybody's feathers here with that. Except maybe if the theotrolls come back.


good luck proving that one.


'kay.


No. No it isn't.

It's not even a mediocre source of literary competence.
I am happy that you find so much to question and I will be happy to answer whatever I can, but please understand, your long list of questions is rather overwhelming, as each question to be properly answered is likely to take a whole post. and to answer then all at once would take more time and energy than I can muster p atone time, so please bear with me and ask one or maybe to questions at a time. and I will do my best to answer them, and please bear in mind, you will likely not be the only one asking those question. Do please pick one or two, and I will get back to you THANKS.

"I don't Debate, I Discuss" I offer my opinions, and listen to yours, I will not require proof of opinions, but I may ask for clarification or state that I reject your position and why, & if asked, I will further clarify mine --- However, I reject any requirement that I PROVE my position is accurate and proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 02:46 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
*raises hand* Darlin', may I ask a curious sort of question? No, not on a particular aspect of your belief. I don't know much science and we got plenty of people here that can explain it better anyhow. Guess its more of your beliefs as a whole sort of question.

So here's my question: would you say you are Jediism spiked with Christianity? And by spiked, I might mean someone dropped an open Christian bottle in the Jediism punch bowl and said, "if I pretend I didn't see it, it did't happen," before whistling and walking away. To be honest, It don't know everything about Jediim to even know if it is usually intertwined with other beliefs. Haven't met anyone that practices it and only heard about it through my Star Wars obsessed cousin (he's Mormon but I figure he'd be part of the Jedi Church if he wasn't). I just thought Jediism because you mentioned the force and titled your thread "Obi Wan Kanobi." It's alright if you don't know or whatnot. Like I said, I'm just curious.

Also...did Han Solo shoot first? * loud booing* I'm sorry! I couldn't help it!

Anyone glancing this post by, yep, Jediism is a legit religion. Link to the Jedi Church for anyone curious. http://www.jedichurch.org/webapps/site/4.../page.html

[Image: notagain.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2014, 03:40 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  So is the deist done circle jerking in public?

We shall see.

I'll give it another night. But if I come back here tomorrow night and this shit is still going, fair warning, I'm unleashing the ponies. I expect backup in the form of cheese, lolcats, and upside-down dogs.

You have your orders. Dismissed!

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
23-11-2014, 06:11 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(23-11-2014 03:40 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(22-11-2014 10:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  We shall see.

I'll give it another night. But if I come back here tomorrow night and this shit is still going, fair warning, I'm unleashing the ponies. I expect backup in the form of cheese, lolcats, and upside-down dogs.

You have your orders. Dismissed!

All I can guarantee is a detachment of 60's Spidermen, sir.

Accompanied by a Pony-squashing Space Marine, of course.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
23-11-2014, 06:41 AM
RE: OBI-WAN KANOBI
(22-11-2014 01:00 PM)doniston Wrote:  if it wasn't for some presently unknown magnetic force,

Electrostatic repulsion.

You do know that your beliefs a re a bunch of unsubstantiated woo, right?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: