Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: SiouxPal who wrote (24376)	7/6/2006 2:00:19 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) of 28931

Something like that. He said that mathematically it appears to work out just fine but there is no way for us to produce a white hole or to demonstrate the conditions he described. Which makes perfect sense. Even if such a thing were to take place we wouldn't be aware of it until after it had been produced. So we would not have known to set up any observations to 'catch' it happening Its like trying to find the cause of MS. No body minds that we say its caused by a virus even though we have never caught the bugger responsible. We are almost sure its caused by a virus but by the time we see the MS its to late to see a cause, and the treatments we have don't depend on whether or not the cause was a virus. So, he is almost sure that it doesn't happen. And it bolsters classical materialism to simply decide it doesn't really matter so lets vote naaaah. Ok, he is welcome to his opinion and I admit that I don't know. I note that we still haven't gotten to the bottom of where this gumball or its smaller versions come from. So lacking a definitive answer, I am comfortable leaving the possibility of a white hole out there as one of many possibilities. I am also reminded that a great many things are accepted as probable, based soley on mathematical likelyhood. This one is dismissed fairly easily. Some of the new evidence related to quantum theory is also creating some of that discomfort and is not so easily dismissed. We know for example that a particle comes from something that is not necessarily a particle or a wave while having properties of both. A particle being the smallest unit of matter. There is more and more evidence to show that there is natural force that we cannot yet explain as a physical phenomenon. The article about 'Black Holes' touched on that very lightly, maybe because it was addressed to beginners. There are some texts that deal with this notion in a much more rigorous manner. The easiest conclusion for some scientists is to simply dismiss such notions. There are plenty of very renowned scientists who don't and more joining their ranks all the time. That has always been the case for true scientific discovery. It is a creative process, you go to the new fronteers rather than revert back to a known comfort level like Flat Earth thinking, when you find phenomenon that doesn't fit the pre-existing models. I keep reading that Einstein said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. But there is evidence of speed faster than the speed of light. Communication, for example, travels faster than light speed. There is plenty of evidence that is observable and replicable in quantum physics that demonstrates this. I realize that wasn't what Einstein was talking about but he was not all knowing and there is plenty that we can learn by looking past what he discovered. There just might be more to it as hard as that is for true believers to accept. Maybe its time for some of the Einsteinian lab cloak clerics to get off their alters and return to the ranks of us mortals.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next