Think about this...

Gravity has infinite energy!

Where is that energy comming from?

God?

or Some strange force inside a planet?

I'd go for "Some strange force inside a planet".

Except everything that has mass has gravity.

And gravity isn't a force, it's an acceleration (I'm sure there's a better term for it).

It's not particularly strange either, we know quite a bit about it.

Let's revise the original phrase to "Some property of matter".

And gravity most certainly does not have infinite energy; it has no energy at all. What it has is the ability to convert potential energy to kinetic.

This little exchange perfectly demonstrates the religious vs. the enlightened.

The religious don't know the answer to something, so they say that it must be God, and furthermore is proof of God.

The enlightened respond with knowledge of how it actually works, or an admission that it isn't completely understood.



To everyone who would offer a similar argument, I offer this advice: learn a little first, before you make a fool of yourself like KornHater 87.

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed. So according to science matter can't exist or become extinct, however, matter Does exist, so whatever made matter must be able to break the laws of science. In whatever form, that's god.

TheBishop

Who says matter was created? That's simply the shortcomings of your human mind having a hard time dealing with the fact that in all likelihood, existence had no beginning and will have no end.

Like I just said... just because you don't know or don't understand, that doesn't mean God did it.

^ It was a cool post tho and deserves some thought. At least as to whether or not matter has always existed.

[This message has been edited by ---Beany--- (edited 02-11-2004).]

here is my proof of good.

Life. That's it, life. There is no reason for our bodies to have the spake of life. No I don't mean you live because your heart beats or your mind think. I mean that some higher power I don't know what it is, or why it does what it does, decieded that each of us has potencial enough to have our "on switch" flicted on. that's my proof, there is no scientfic baises for life to exist.

[This message has been edited by BlackMage (edited 02-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed. So according to science matter can't exist or become extinct, however, matter Does exist, so whatever made matter must be able to break the laws of science. In whatever form, that's god.

TheBishop

I know it's a little incredible, but it's been suggested that the laws of physics actually change somehow over time... I don't know much about it but I read somewhere that there's a natural nuclear reactor that serves as evidence for the Fine Structure Contant having changed over time. So maybe at a time waaaaay before the Big Bang, the laws of physics were such that matter and energy could be created. It's way beyond human understanding at the present time but at least we know it's a possibility.

[This message has been edited by sp0rkius (edited 02-11-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by BlackMage:

here is my proof of good.

Life. That's it, life. There is no reason for our bodies to have the spake of life. No I don't mean you live because your heart beats or your mind think. I mean that some higher power I don't know what it is, or why it does what it does, decieded that each of us has potencial enough to have our "on switch" flicted on. that's my proof, there is no scientfic baises for life to exist.

[This message has been edited by BlackMage (edited 02-11-2004).]

Life is just some abstract term invented by the mass of natural logic gates that is particularly advanced in the species "homo sapiens". Magic isn't real either, but people believe it. Life is an illusion. Would talk more, patronise you a bit.... gotta go though.

You can argue on and on infinity from both sides as to gods existence, and that's why I just can't be assed to partake anymore.

If someone disagrees with you, they'll search and search for a argument against your post, without even giving a minute to contemplate the deeper meaning of what you've just said.

quote:Originally posted by BlackMage:

here is my proof of good.

Life. That's it, life. There is no reason for our bodies to have the spake of life. No I don't mean you live because your heart beats or your mind think. I mean that some higher power I don't know what it is, or why it does what it does, decieded that each of us has potencial enough to have our "on switch" flicted on. that's my proof, there is no scientfic baises for life to exist.

[This message has been edited by BlackMage (edited 02-11-2004).]

There's also no reason for life NOT to exist. Your argument is flawed.

No, gravity is a side effect of energy. The more mass something has, then the more attraction(gravity) it has. And because of E=MC2, the more energy something has, the more mass and the more gravity. That is why gravity can't power your car up the side of a mountain unless you just pushed it off a higher one. And if gravity did have infinate attraction(not energy) then the mass it is a property of would have infinite energy, and collapse into a black hole. That is some very basic physics for you.

there's infinite energy popping into and out of existance in a finite space.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed. So according to science matter can't exist or become extinct, however, matter Does exist, so whatever made matter must be able to break the laws of science. In whatever form, that's god.

TheBishop

Newtons laws are only vague representations of motion, hinted at by calculus.

quote:Originally posted by ---Beany---:

If someone disagrees with you, they'll search and search for a argument against your post, without even giving a minute to contemplate the deeper meaning of what you've just said.

What deeper meaning is there to contemplate in flawed arguments?

and ilbastardoh: I don't think Newton's Laws have anything to do with conservation of mass.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

What deeper meaning is there to contemplate in flawed arguments?



The flaws usually come from how the reader chooses to interpret the message. Usually they interpret the message in whichever way is easier to argue against.

Then the arguer should point out that they are being misinterpreted so that the reader can't ignore his point.

Otherwise the arguer isn't doing eir job very well.

My bad I thought Newton's principles of the universe being nothing much a predictable machine gave rise to these theorems.

So what your all saying is that all this proves that God exists?

If so.. please tell me how it must be the Christian God and not any other religious (sp) Diety? It could be The Goddess from Wicca who did all you mention....

quote:Originally posted by Duck:

No, gravity is a side effect of energy. The more mass something has, then the more attraction(gravity) it has. And because of E=MC2, the more energy something has, the more mass and the more gravity. That is why gravity can't power your car up the side of a mountain unless you just pushed it off a higher one. And if gravity did have infinate attraction(not energy) then the mass it is a property of would have infinite energy, and collapse into a black hole. That is some very basic physics for you.



No, Gravity does have infinite attraction, and Gravity is a force, Craftian, and forces have acceleration. You guys need to take physics classes.

Gravity is not a force it is an effect, a by product of matter, how this all happens though is, so far beyond our understanding. Perhaps it is the momentum of the electrons traveling through the atom toward other atoms by the means of some unknown effect. But who knows, we aren't evan sure of an atom's real shape yet, nothing can be proven anyway.

quote:Originally posted by jwchips:

So what your all saying is that all this proves that God exists?

If so.. please tell me how it must be the Christian God and not any other religious (sp) Diety? It could be The Goddess from Wicca who did all you mention....

Nobody said it was the Christian god.

And Bishop, as others have stated your argument only wokrs assuming there was a beginning.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed. So according to science matter can't exist or become extinct, however, matter Does exist, so whatever made matter must be able to break the laws of science. In whatever form, that's god.

TheBishop



I thought that law only applied by natural chemical reactions.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed.



Under normal conditions. Prior to the Planck wall barrier in the big bang, where scientific laws as we know them cease to apply, I highly doubt conditions were "normal".

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 02-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

Gravity is a force, Craftian, and forces have acceleration.

force = mass * acceleration

If gravity were a force, then the acceleration of a dropped object would depend on its mass. There's a story about Galileo and the Leaning Tower of Pisa; we've known acceleration of falling objects is the same regardless of mass for a long time.

quote:You guys need to take physics classes.

Hah, right. Take one yourself before you presume to dispense advice.

to prove god exists would be to prove him wrong, because he can only exist with faith.

and faith means simply "believing". And in a universe created by god, without god, we would all go "poof" and nothing would exist.

now what did you say was your proof? hey whered everybody go?

quote:The flaws usually come from how the reader chooses to interpret the message. Usually they interpret the message in whichever way is easier to argue against.

If the message can be interpreted in many ways then it's flawed. Surely the point of argument is to find any possible flaws in the arguer's argument untill you find an argument that can't be flawed, which can be presumed to be right.

i think the very fact that you guys are trying to prove or disprove gods existence by using the laws of physics is laughable.

JUST THINK ABOUT HOW MUCH WE ACTUALLY KNOW!

physics is merely observation with interpretation, people thought newton was an inshakable god with gravitation, but then along came einstein, and with him revelution, and with that quantum physics and the attempt (pretty much failed) to find a unified theory between gravity and electro-magnetism. Debating the existence of god with extremely limited observations is foolhardy, and shouldnt be taken seriously.

On the other hand if you somehow created another revelution in physics, discovered timetravel, went back and saw jesus in the flesh (or not) then youd have something to argue about...

good luck building that time machine http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by great glavin (edited 02-13-2004).]

Laws of physics are rarely disproved, just complicated. Newton's laws still apply, but now we think of them in a different way... gravity as acceleration instead of a force. I can't believe there are still luddites out there who don't "believe" in physics.

"Physics is merely observation with interpretation"... what do you think religion is? Physics is structured observation with interpretation based on careful repeat experiments, based on strong evidence, based on logic and based on what is already as good as known about the world, whereas religion is based on unreliable observation, interpreted by making up some fanciful story about omnipresent beings and fanatically following the teachings of a single person, or at best a very small group of people, who offer no evidence to back up their claims.

If I saw Jesus in the flesh I'd think "nice guy, one of the few (famous) people to actually try and improve the world to a great extent... I don't see how he is proof of God's existance.

We know the acceleration of Gravity is 9.81 m/s/s and we know that an object in free fall has mass and his subject to the acceleration of Gravity of the Earth, therefore the force acting on the object, is the force of Gravity, using the equation you used to prove your point... F=MA, Gravity, as all forces, has an acceleration but it that doesn't mean it IS one. I have taken a Physics course, obviously Craftian, you have not.

Ahem, if you need further proof Craftian here you go... 1. The natural force of attraction exerted by a celestial body, such as Earth, upon objects at or near its surface, tending to draw them toward the center of the body.

2. The natural force of attraction between any two massive bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

There, A NATURAL FORCE not A NATURAL ACCELERATION. there, I'm satisfied, are you?

And about your other point F=ma If Gravity were a force it would change for every object because the masses are different...this is very true, the force of Gravity is never Constant, neither are most forces.

[This message has been edited by Hammer&Sickle (edited 02-19-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Hammer&Sickle (edited 02-19-2004).]

Hey Fullspeed, you gonna credit Douglas Adams for that, or are you gonna let everyone think you came up with it? :-)

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

We know the acceleration of Gravity is 9.81 m/s/s

So gravity is a force (N) despite the fact that it is measured in m/s^2 or N/kg? Riiight...

quote:Ahem, if you need further proof Craftian here you go...

Those statements aren't evidence of anything unless you mention where they came from. I'm not going to claim that I'm absolutely right; I'm not entirely sure of the terminology being used. However, your point is as of yet without evidence.

Not to mention that all this is irrelevant to the original point.

quote:I have taken a Physics course, obviously Craftian, you have not.

Right. As an engineering student, I've never taken a physics class.

Its on its own right now, and you want my source? www.dictionary.com, (http://www.dictionary.com,) look gravity, and yes the ACCELERATION of gravity is measured in m/s/s, however it is a force by definition, accelerations do not draw people in, forces do. the acceleration of Earth's gravity is constant, but it is different on different planets, but their is a Gravitational Constant, but that's a different subject. Objects in lets say projectile motion aren't pulled down by acceleration. In order for an object to move, a Force must be acting on it, that is a universal law. Therefore If an Object is to move, lets say in freefall, There must be a force acting on it, that Force is Gravity.

Gravity is, to my recollection, a constant, which is magnified by mass, and reduced by distance. 6.11*10^-23 is the constant of gravity I believe.

Think: If gravity were a force, then everythign would have a different acceleration. It's closer to an acceleration than force, but being as accelerations are due to forces, it's really neither one. Gravity is the constant that relates acceleration and distance from the Center of Mass from the objects being attracted.

Well, that's my understanding of it anyways.

the only way they'll confince us god exists is if they show HER to us, the only way they'll be confinced SHE doesn't is we kill them and SHE's not in heaven when they get there.

anyway enough extremism, it doesn't suit me.

how can sayin a mathamatical law proves god exists be right. God (s) as an infinite being should have existed before (and after) time (ie before things started to happen)so needn't be bound by laws of physics. gravity follows set laws all the time, even near the bigbang. no one knows why gravity exists although i have theories on that to0, but it's ceertinaly a consequance of matter and energy, and not an overruling factor of them

now for life. U're starting from the presumption that we're more than just charnal envelopes, so u won't be afraid to die to test your thoery. even if the mind is more than just neurotransmitters passing across synaptic junctions, it doesn't prove god exists. evry living thing which u can see today (or not) is the way it is because if it wasn't it wouldn't have survived, it's called natural selection. it doesn't need n external force to get it there (and certinally not a supernatural one) it just takes time.

oh and what we call gravity is the effect of gravity on objects. Grvity is a force, sorry, but this still doesn't prove god exists or not, and promptly disappeared in a poof of logic

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

In order for an object to move, a Force must be acting on it, that is a universal law.

Incorrect. In order for an object to accelerate a force must be applied to it.

This force is what we call the "force due to gravity", not the "force of gravity". An important distinction.

But it doesn't matter; this is definitely not a proof of a god.

And since when is a dictionary a scientific reference?

Give me an example of an object that moves without a force first being applied to it...I can't think of one. and gravity is a constant, and actually it is more of a Concept, since Accelerations need a force and a force needs a mass, which gravity comes from, so its neither, and is a concept i guess...and gravity has different accelerations for different objects me thinks.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Here's my God Proof

The law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be Created or destroyed. So according to science matter can't exist or become extinct, however, matter Does exist, so whatever made matter must be able to break the laws of science. In whatever form, that's god.

TheBishop

Would that be 'energy'? How can there be other than existence? Don't understand http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif) For there to be a beginning to existence there must have been nothing before, how does nothing exist? And how does something come from nothing?

you can't understand because you're thinking of time as a dimension of its own. I won't get into a discussion into time here (needs a thread of it's own in Science) before the bigbang all the matter/energy was there, it just wasn't doing anything. the big bang isn't when matter was created, it just when it started doing stuff.

Is it possible for something to be only 3 dimensional (ie. without the time bit)? My understanding is that 'before' the big bang it was something like that (very simplified view of course!) In other words, time itself didn't start until the big bang, so cause and effect theories are a bit messed up.

It's a hard concept to grasp, given our limited perceptions of the universe. We intuitively think that something happens, which THEN causes something else to happen. Take out time, and it's a different game completely. Personally, I think those concepts are so abstract that people feel more comfortable having a god to kick start things. Then again, I'm probably wrong!

Another thought: isn't gravity theoretically equal in force to electromagnetic energy, but our measurements are that it's much weaker? If it wasn't, we would be pulled into the core of the earth. Probably. So one theory is that gravity is one of the few forces that can pass through different universes/dimensions/branes/whatever. And it could possibly be one of those branes making contact with ours that caused the big bang in the first place. Damn, I think I'll start learning a bit more physics, this stuff is soooo much more interesting than religion!!!!

To me Time does not exist we made it up to explain things that move. WE simply exist and things change or move. I've been told things have to be created by certain creationists and such... well ask them who created god? OK I'm done...

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

Give me an example of an object that moves without a force first being applied to it

Without a force first being applied to it, you are correct. But a force is definitely not necessary for an object to move; find an empty stretch of highway and shift your car into neutral. No force is being applied* but it is still moving.

Forces create acceleration, not velocity.

*Neglecting the force of friction, which is acting against its movement anyhow.

quote:and gravity has different accelerations for different objects me thinks.

Absolutely incorrect. Unless by "different objects" you mean "where one of the objects isn't Earth".

quote:Originally posted by dr_rock:

you can't understand because you're thinking of time as a dimension of its own. I won't get into a discussion into time here (needs a thread of it's own in Science) before the bigbang all the matter/energy was there, it just wasn't doing anything. the big bang isn't when matter was created, it just when it started doing stuff.



Not quite, I can't understand how people can think something came from nothing.

You say before the 'theoretical' big bang "matter/energy was there, it just wasn't doing anything", however that runs counter to everything one sees around.

Everything moves. nothing rests, everything is in motion, vibrating, how then could there have been a time where "it wasn't doing anything"? Sounds like a theory made up to support another theory?

quote:Originally posted by redzed:

Not quite, I can't understand how people can think something came from nothing.

I can't understand how people can think "goddidit" is a better answer.

I don't believe in God, but here's my thoughts on religious rationalization...

It doesn't matter if there's scientific proof against Creation. If you feel adamently about it and it makes you feel better, keep believing. Really, it'd be hard to sway a devout christian into atheism anyways. Just like Santa, if you believe in him and it makes you feel better knowing that he brings the presents and it's not just one big lie, keep believing. As long as it makes you feel good.

Fine. But don't lie to people by telling them it's literally true (my kids OR yours), and don't think you deserve any special rights because you enjoy living a lie.

There was no big bang, matter was always around and always moving. Time does not exist, it is not a dimension it is only how we keep track of things, purely abstract.

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I can't understand how people can think "goddidit" is a better answer.

It's not, why invent the supernatural when there is a natural explanation. Energy/matter exists, it is eternal and indestructible, there is no way it cannot exist as it is impossible for there to be nothing. Existence is the imperative, energy and matter has always existed and always will.

Sigh.

Ok. Here's how gravity works. Think of the fabric of spacetime as a trampiline. When you put an object on said trampoline, it depresses the plane. If you put another object on the trampoline, it will roll down that incline. Thats how gravity works. And gravity is, in fact, a force, along with the electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces. And gravity is the one we know the least about.

As for matter being created, the best model currently available is that some 10-20 billion years ago our entire universe was a ball of absurdly hot, dense energy approximately a Planck length in size. This energy was transformed into matter via Einsteins equation. It's alot more complicated than that, but thats the watered down version.

Gravity is an unknown, it creates an acceleration and when a mass has an acceleration applyed to it the result is a force. Actually gravity is thought of as a result of an expanding micro/macro-universe as an object exsists it expands and if it is expanding and we are on it not expanding relitive to earth but to ourselves then that means we are at 0speed and earth at a higher speed and there for creates an acceleration. Am i right? i think this is relitivities explanation of gravity. This was a very elementary explanation i think i may have not explained it fairly if you would like to learn more just research it or if you can't find anything on it just contact me and i'll go further.

One question does the earth's velocity of rotation (on its axis) change due to the fact that earth collects space 'dust' at a relative velocity of 0? If so then do the math earth can't have been around for billions of years can it?...just a question if anyone knows info on the matter please do inform me/us.

Why do you people talk about time not existing? What do you call existance? It's not tangible if that's what you mean. But that's like saying distance does't exist. Sure, someone decided on meters (or any unit) to measure distance, but it must be there or there would be nothing to measure. Time does exist, you're just trying to sound smart.

Gravity is a force. Go back to high school.

It takes a force to move something. The "car in neutral" argument is dumb because there was a force acting on it. There isn't one now, but that's not the point. You, Craftian, I believe were trying to say that stuff moves for no reason, which is stupid

Glitter, time doesn't exist. We reference different states of matter in time periods, because it's the only way we can understand movement. It has nothing to do with me wanting to sound smart, fuck any of you who think I care what I sound like. Time simply does not exist in reality, matter just moves.

quote:Originally posted by GlitterPunk112358:

It takes a force to move something. The "car in neutral" argument is dumb because there was a force acting on it. There isn't one now, but that's not the point.

Sure it's the point. Forces are necessary for acceleration, not movement. If we call the time at which you shift into neutral t=0 then we've got movement without a force. You don't have to look at things as a whole, instantaneous is just as meaningful.

quote:You, Craftian, I believe were trying to say that stuff moves for no reason, which is stupid

It would be stupid if that was what I was saying; it wasn't. It's all semantics anyhow.

quote:Originally posted by Televangelism Rapist:

We reference different states of matter in time periods, because it's the only way we can understand movement.

That's like saying we reference matter in different places because it's the only way we can understand movement, but distances don't exist.

Glitter you totally missed my main point of the reason of gravity. It is because of the outward expansion of matter. I said it does not exsist because that is the elementary explanation.

the rubber sheet model of gravity is merely a visualisation of how the force of gravity changes as the distance between objects changes, it increases to infinity (!!!!) as the objects get closer and closer together.

enthrophy:

everything in the universe will move to be in the lowest energy state it can (this is why gases spread out in a room)

so if all the matter in the universe is condensed into one point (a planck across apparently, even though this is a unit of energy! in fact it's the smallest amount of energy a superatomic particle can have). this matter will only stay in this point while it's enthropy is =0, that is to say it's at a base energy level, all the matter cannot lose any energy by interacting or moving away from other particles. as you can imagine this state cannot be very stable, and the enthrophy could easily become > 0. and if one particle moved in such a delicate situation as t=0 then enthrophy would sore, causing a big bang.

time:

particles can move to reduce their enthrophy, they do this by interactions of 4 kinds (electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear and gravitational)

electromagnetic forces are to do with the charge of the particles. any particle will attempt to have an overall charge = 0, they do this by exchanging or sharing charged particles



strong nuclear force holds protons and neutrons together, this is often thought of as a force which challanges the repulsive elegromagnetic force between two neutrons, but this is like saying that some energy is coming from no where, if a nucleus is stable it is because it is at it's lowest energy level. it is more likely that the juxtaposing nuleon pairs have something the other wants so by being next to each other they can share it (gluons)

the weak force holds particles together which decay easily, such as deutrinium and c-14. it's also an exchange of particles (Bosons) between electrons and neutrinos. no one says (admits) this but this means that quarks are made up of electrons and neutrinos(or/and photons), held together by bosons. so they both want a boson... by being together they get to share it!

Gravity... ok noone knows what this force is, but heres a theory.

objects or particles are attracted because of their mass. what are they trying to share? mass! so by being connected by gravity they share mass. questions arise

1) why do they need more mass? well you remember the missing mass of the universe, well maybe it is just that... missing maybe everything should be heavier, but because it's not gravity exists

2) how is mass shared (in the 3 other forces there is a particle involved). Gravitons could do this, but because gravity appears to be instantanious, their must actually be a matrix of gravitons throughout the universe, thicker between massive objects (hence more mass shared).

so why did i call this section time?

as you can see (or look up on the internet) the 4 forces depend on space. their is no mention of time, just sequance of events. enthrophy is linear, it goes in one direction. time doesn't come into it. in fact time as a unit isn't needed to explain the laws of physics and there is no proof of it ( einsteins experiments can be explain by the change in enthrophy induced by the variation of speed (which means you are adding energy to a system))

So I believe TIME is just made up to simplify calculations of speed. but propulsion science will go aloty faster if researchers rethink all their calculations in terms of energy instead of time.

so if gravity is this matrix which holds objects together and part of the universe, waht would happen if the amount of gravity affecting an object was reduced of eliminated? I'll leave you to imagine