- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: James webb tele proving big bang theory probably is inaccurate
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:35 pm to hubertcumberdale
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:35 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
yes, when you measure something, you will measure things you didnt had you not been measuring it.
Good, now we have further evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.
In the double slit experiment, you can see the results after it's done, whether or not you observed it when it took place. The SOLE variable is the act of observation. When it behaves like a wave, you get a fringe pattern on the film; when it behaves like a particle, it forms solid bars.
2
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:38 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
The SOLE variable is the act of observation
Again, can you please explain to us what it means to 'observe'
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:40 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:Is this supposed to be a "gotcha"? Look up the experiment. It's well-documented for decades. So is quantum entanglement, although for less time. QE proved that information travels instantaneously, as in faster than the speed of light.
Again, can you please explain to us what it means to 'observe'
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:46 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Is this supposed to be a "gotcha"? Look up the experiment. It's well-documented for decades. So is quantum entanglement, although for less time. QE proved that information travels instantaneously, as in faster than the speed of light.
yes, your original post
quote:
Science is more and more coming to the uncomfortable (for some) realization that things don't exist until they are observed, and that the conscious is not an annoying inexplicable artefact of a mysterious brain, but rather the top of the hierarchy, so it would only make sense that, for there to have been a big bang, there must have been an observer.
the fact that subatomic particles behave differently whether or not they are interacting with light is not some proof that a creator exists, since the definition of observing in this case is for it to interact with light and be measured
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:47 pm to omegaman66
quote:
Scientist go to work to fit models to agendas
FIFY
This post was edited on 9/8/22 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:50 pm to Jack Carter
quote:
Waves may not exist only in the present, but in the past, present and future simultaneously
Energy exists in the past, present and future simultaneously when its speed equals the speed of light. At the speed of light, time=0, as does distance. Pure energy including photons existing at the speed of light does not experience time at all.
LINK
And for fun, how would a photon experience distance?
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:51 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
the fact that subatomic particles
You mean photons?
quote:
are interacting with light
You mean photons?
quote:It is not "proof" but it puts the argument for an overarching, primal consciousness above everything you believe from Neil deHack Tyson and Bill Nye the BS in Mechanical Engineering but Not in Science Guy.
is not some proof that a creator exists
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:54 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
QE proved that information travels instantaneously, as in faster than the speed of light.
Does it actually travel faster than speed of light or perhaps, move out of our universe into another interfacing universe with different rules? I lean towards the latter because of lack of time/distance at the speed of light. All speculation but interesting.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:55 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
the fact that subatomic particles You mean photons?
quote:
Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.[6] Additionally, the detection of individual discrete impacts is observed to be inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical mechanics.[6] The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).[16]
Electrons are subatomic
This post was edited on 9/8/22 at 9:58 pm
Posted on 9/8/22 at 9:58 pm to Tigers2010a
quote:
Big Bang is support for a creator. In Big Bang, the universe has a beginning and thus needs a creator.
At the very least it implies some initiating action that is not inconsistent with a creator (one existing outside this universe).
The whole, vast, infinite, unchanging mental model some folks have of the universe (which is clearly wrong based on observations going back centuries) is less consistent with a creator than the BBT.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:03 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Good, now we have further evidence that you have no idea what you're talking about.
My brother in Christ, neither do you
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:03 pm to Tigers2010a
quote:Well some have argued that photons that are shot out one-by-one through a slit interfere with themselves, seemingly (impossible) because they are being interfered with by photons in other dimensions.
Does it actually travel faster than speed of light or perhaps, move out of our universe into another interfacing universe with different rules? I lean towards the latter because of lack of time/distance at the speed of light. All speculation but interesting.
Now imagine if reality were such that we had a number of parallel universes that branched off from every photon so that every fathomable division of time resulted in the creation of new universes for each longitudinally divisible part of a wave (they're not divisible as far as we can tell, meaning that number alone may be unfathomable) for every instance of a light ray or any other electromagnetic source. To type out the results of that equation just over the period of a second would surely require a data storage device larger than the size of the known universe.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:04 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:We're both goldfish in the bowl, but we've clearly established a relative hierarchy.
My brother in Christ, neither do you
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:05 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:No one mentioned electrons. I can assure you that we covered electrons, among other things, in the first 5 minutes of HS chemistry.
Electrons are subatomic
Just take the L. Don't Kasich yourself.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:12 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Science is more and more coming to the uncomfortable (for some) realization that things don't exist until they are observed, and that the conscious is not an annoying inexplicable artefact of a mysterious brain, but rather the top of the hierarchy, so it would only make sense that, for there to have been a big bang, there must have been an observer.
You are the one saying the double slit experiment is proof that there was an observer (creator) to the Big Bang, I am saying you are confused as to what “observe” means by the definition of quantum mechanics
quote:
The quantum mechanical observer is tied to the issue of observer effect, where a measurement necessarily requires interacting with the physical object being measured, affecting its properties through the interaction. The term "observable" has gained a technical meaning, denoting a Hermitian operator that represents a measurement.[2]:?55
What am I confused about?
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:12 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:
So your logical conclusion is that some being created it? Who created the being?
We witness and know that cognizant beings can and do form and manifest from a molecular reservoir of Energy. Both Matter and Conscious Lifeforms being a derivative of Energy. And we further know that said Lifeforms are able to acquire Knowledge (Universal Rules) and implement it as Power. To what extent this Evolutionary Process is or has been (Einstein's Relativity applying) 'happened' is irrelevant, as Einstein's Theory makes moot any suppositions. I.e., given Relativity, anything that CAN happen...already has.
The ultimate question is whether or not the Infinite (again, Einstein) Energy Reservoir...is...Conscious. I.e., Aware...of It's being. If It is...that is God. And that ain't a Person, by any stretch of imagination.
The Intellect and Knowledge (Truth/Word) of the total Energy Reservoir is and will remain incomprehensible to any Limited Being. Don't mean we can't imagine It.
The true God (assuming such exists) is not 'a being', but Being Itself. Always has been...always will be. Could not not exist even if It wanted to. Now whether It views 'Itself' as a Singular Being in any way akin to our view...would be a foolish idea. Something that 'big' would not think in any way like we People Lifeforms do. Like comparing the 'thoughts' of a Virus to our own.
"Sewn in corruption...raised incorruptible" Helluva show! Would expect nothing less from and infinitely Self-Aware, Knowledgeable and LOVING 'Reservoir of Energy/Light'
Thank you Jesus.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:23 pm to VolcanicTiger
quote:
Neil deHack Tyson and Bill Nye the BS in Mechanical Engineering but Not in Science Guy.
frick bill nye but what’s your beef with NdGT? The guy went to Harvard, UT and Columbia. Sure I liked Carl Sagan way better in Cosmos but still think NdGT is pretty solid.
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:25 pm to hubertcumberdale
quote:For starters, your odds of coming out of this thread a winner.
What am I confused about?
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:27 pm to VolcanicTiger
Great substance, thank you for your elegant explanation of how the double slit experiment implies there is a creator, you will hopefully win a Nobel prize for your work and save billions of lost souls in the process
Posted on 9/8/22 at 10:32 pm to hubertcumberdale
that a being exists outside of space time
Anything including energy that exists at the speed of light exists outside of space/time. It is another realm of existence without beginning or end. Why no beginning or end...because energy cannot be created or destroyed...it is eternal.
Anything including energy that exists at the speed of light exists outside of space/time. It is another realm of existence without beginning or end. Why no beginning or end...because energy cannot be created or destroyed...it is eternal.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News