/sci/ - Science & Math

0/10

sage and reported

why do you keep doing this?

it's just a constant bullshit troll thread with trolls trolling trolls

/thread

>>954008
> Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is absolute truth
no, and nobody thinks that

now go get fucked in the ass with a rusty sword and come back when you have something interesting and original to contribute. kthx

don't reply to OP just sage

>>954016
>>954021
>>954022
>>954027
>>954035

>>954008
>Implying argument through analogy isn't a fallacy in itself
>I've been trolled :(

You got us there.
Man, do I ever feel silly now.

I usually support freedom of and for information, but if this is all that religious people do with it, then I wish to cut their wires, jam their WiFi and burn their books. Actually, bibles make some real good tinder.

>>954045

>>954023
I would think that atheists raised in Iran/Saudia Arabia would be "anti-Islam" in comparison. It's because almost all atheists in the US were RAISED Christian.

"anti" isn't even the right prefix, it's just that Christianity is what pushes itself on society the most in the US.

(I know you're a troll, but still)

>>954051
Good Tinder= Darwin's 'Origin of Species'

saging for shit that isn't relevant to science.

>>954038
no

NO

I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT

I DID NOT SEE THIS COMING AT ALL

now seriously, get the fuck out

sage

No one believes in religion on /sci/, there is nothing to discuss that hasn't already been harped on to death.

Why don't we have any mods?

This thread looks completely legit guys, whats the problem?

I ask why would one sage a post that was made for the sole purpose of saging? You do realize that it has no effect on the position of the thread. There is only one correct time to sage, and it is when YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO TELL OP but you do not want to bump the thread. Why is this so hard to understand?

Post deliberately unsaged, so maybe some other tards will see it and be a little less dumb.

OP, you are a bad troll. Religion trolling is so easy it's ratarded.

get out

believes in religion on /sci/

sage

"And there's no way to prove a God doesn't exist but they believe it strongly."

Atheism is the absence of religious beliefs. Just because one can't prove a negative doesn't mean that one has to accept beliefs that lack a smidgeon of compelling evidence to support them. Every OTR insists that their historical claims and deities are the only ones that exist--and they're all different. I think this says something: their god[s] didn't create man, man created their god[s].

Darwin's theories may raise questions, but at least it's supported by scientific evidence.

Some religionists assert that the universe could only be created by God. But here's a conundrum: if 1 or more gods created the universe, who created him/them?

>>954008
well yeah

>>954008
> The Bible is pure fabrication
No, it's a collection of myth mixed with legal documents from a fascist state. It's impure fabrication.
> written by superstitious cave men,
No, it was written largely by the Catholic Church in about 300AD by a committee vote which decided each of the ancient sandnigger texts to include and each to exclude.
> but Darwin's 'Origin of Species' is absolute truth
No, it is wrong in many places and those places have been identified and corrected. Nobody believes in the book. It was written by a man with limited data and understanding, and is not infallible nor truth. It it relevant because the base assertion of our origins was the first of its kind to be fundamentally correct. The current theory, while far outstripping Darwin's, retains the indelible stamp of its lowly origins even after hundreds of years of experimental verification and improvement.

>>957348
>Who created god(s)?
If there's no God, who created the universe?
One of these things transcends causality at some point; your argument is terrible.

>>957514
The Laws of Physics do not apply outside of our universe. In the time before the big bang something could be created by nothing.

>>957555
Do laws apply outside of the universe. Wouldn't we call anywhere where laws apply part of our universe?

>>957576
I'm not sure I understand your post. Different universes have different Laws. For example: A sailboat in another universe might sail the opposite direction of the wind.

Before the big bang was no different. There were no Laws. Therefore, something could come out of nothing. I know it's hard for your little creationist brain to comprehend but give it a whirl.

>>957514
Moses created god.
The universe always was.
The Big Bang created the universe. It exists outside of normal time and space and caused itself without cause in the way theists often imagine only a sentient god who cares about how a single species of ape on a single rocky world orbiting a single yellow star in a wholly unremarkable spiral galaxy should mutilate their children's genitals should.

>>957589
Is it a law that different universes have different laws?

>>957595
No, but is it a law that all universes must have the same laws?

>>957595
Ah, I get what you are saying. No, if there are multiple universe, then there are an infinite number. So in that infinite number, it stands to reason that there would be another universe exactly the same as ours right down to the magnets on your fridge.

>>957595
There are no different universe. Everything that exists, by virtue of existing, is in ours.
You think you've found a portal to another dimension where space elves hunt cyberpixies for the last of the ancient spacemagics left to them 40,000 years ago by the first Ultramarine, Harry Potter?
Tough news, the portal and the other dimension and everything in it, should any of those actually exist, are both part of this universe. Just a strange and hard-to-get-to part, the discovery of which radically changes what we understand about the universe.

>>957604
We might find that our observable universes are slightly different, preventing us from ever coming to the same conclusion about the laws which are common to both of us. Whether or not everything has something in common is an undecidable proposition.

>>954008

oh hai, what's going in this thread.

>>957624
Nothing much, explaining Quantum Mechanics to a Christfag. Wbu?

>>957632
but chirstfags are stupid, they cant understand math or science.

>>957607
This post is ridiculous, The Emprah is immortal, therefore he would have kept the first Spess Mahrines alive.

>>957607
By what means could you say that something exists if can have no effect on you or what you observe? What about things beyond the cosmological horizon or inside black holes?

>>957659
If it can have no effect on you, it doesn't exist.
If there's a portal to it, it can affect you.
Things inside black holes might not exist. We don't know if there is an inside to black holes or if the event horizon is just a wall of reality fail. If there is something inside then it must affect the outside i some measurable way in order to justify its still existing. There is nothing outside the universe.

>>957607
HERESY YOU DARE DEFY THE WILL OF THE EMPEROR!!!

>>957713

Then how can everything be in the same universe when our observable universes are different? There are distant events which can effect you, exist for you, but not for me, because a cosmological horizon is centered around each observer .

>>957713
A schizophrenic's delusions affect them. Are the things they see real?

>>957713
Correction:
There is nothing outside the universe except things that don't exist.

>>957738
real for you and me or just them* is what I was trying to say.

/sci/ is not /rel/

>>957738
Yes, schizophrenia is real.

>>957738
Well, if a delusion is a state of the brain, the question is are states real?

>>957732
YOUR A FUCKING RETARD! GET OUT OF MY /SCI/ FAGGOT!

>>957747
The neurons are also real.

>>957732
If there is another universe that doesn't affect this universe at all it in no way fits the definition of being real.

One could take it a bit further and say that anything beyond the edge of the observable universe past the point in time where light cannot outrun the expansion of the universe does not exist because it will have no effect on you or anything you interact with until the end of time. If however the universe falls back in on itself then the affects of everything beyond that edge WILL affect our poriton of the universe thus it can be said to exist. This train of thought is a little extreme though. I'm going to stick with the previous paragraph cuz it's simple.

If something doesn't affect this universe it doesn't exist.

ITT: Only one person who knows what "universe" means, and a bunch of other fags making shit up about stupid shit.

>>957766
K, but you say "our portion of the universe" yet you and I do not occupy the same space, and there is lots of space between us.

>>957786
what does "universe" mean?

>>957766
It is sometimes difficult in practice to determine the outer boundary of the universe. There are things which as the universe expands might come into view that we cannot presently see now. These things will also exist, and have existed, because they affected things that eventually affected us. There might actually be fairies, who have merely hidden for a very long time but in the year 802837 will reveal themselves to us. They also exist, if such a thing will happen.
But when you provide the hint that something does not and cannot ever be detected or influence us in any way, you are the one who has said it does not exist and is not part of the universe, and I merely accept your assertion if it seems likely and probably. Foe example: God never intervenes in any way. God is undetectable. God cannot be measured, ever. God exists outside the universe. These all mean the same thing. God does not exist.

>>957786
Oh boy, just leave the thread now before everyone ends up making you look like an idiot you high school student.

>>954008
YEAH, YOU ARE A SMART MAN!

>>957788
>there is lots of space between us.
Compared to the size of the universe and the distance light will travel until the expansion of the universe tears everything apart, no, no we are not far apart.

>>954008
TROLL

>>957790
everything, literally

>>957790
I define the universe as the smallest closed system. If something affects this universe it is by definition part of the universe.

>>957806
Well, only the things that exist. Harry Potter isn't in the universe, as far as we know. Just books about him and the thoughts a few apes have about him.

>>957799
I'm still waiting.
Make me look like an idiot.

>>957803
According to wikipedia the maximum extent of the observable universe is 93 billion light years or roughly 10^26 meters in diameter, the minimum extent of the observable universe is a planck length, or roughly 10^-35 meters. Seems like we're closer to the bigger scale than the smaller.

>>957819
You just posted a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog and made a quote taunting someone in his words.
You look like an idiot.

>>957815
being in different places means we do not totally share the set of things which can cause a change in us.

>>957821
1) The edge of the observable universe is smaller than the radius from this point that will affect this portion of space before the expansion of the universe makes interaction at that radius impossible.
2) The planch length has nothing to do with it.

>>957828
I can't make sense of what you are saying.

>>957815
>>957815

Shit Negro, don't you know that the prinicple of locality doesn't apply to real physics.

>>957828
Affecting you where you can affect me affects me.

>>957819
YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT!

>>957833
Explain.

>>957839
Shit Negro, what exactly do you want to know?
What do you know already?
(how much am I gonna have to dumb shit down for you)

You know QM? Bell's shit?

>>957852
I don't even know what in my posts you are referring to. You need to actually say something. :/

>>957829
The scale at which a Schwarzschild radius equals a Compton wavelength is the Planck scale. The scale at which a black hole's behavior is dominated by quantum rather than relativistic effects.

>>957865
And it still has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

>>957869
Not on topic? I thought you were saying something about how if it doesn't effect you it doesn't exist. Well, if you look down at the Planck scale you hit an event horizon, just like if you look up at the cosmological scale.

>>957857
Well allow me to retort,

>I define the universe as the smallest closed system. If something affects this universe it is by definition part of the universe.

That is a bullshit meaningless statement, no matter how you take it.

1) Using set theory, which you are trying to do (LMAO). You cannot take the universe as a subset of something else. By defintion there is nothing outside the universe. Be it a sci or phil defintion, the universe is defined as everything. If we discover there is "more", we simply say the universe is bigger then we thought, we never say that somthing existis outside the universe. It is basically defined for its closure property.

2) There are no closed sub systems of the universe. The smallest closed subsystem of the universe is just the universe itself. You cannot take subsystems of the univsere and try to form a closed group, it basic QM and group theory Negro!

>>957886
I still don't see how this is relevant.

>>957893
Basically what you are talking about is information, you can go as broad as, that which can distinguish something from something else. You are suggesting that in order for something to exist, information exchange must be possible. I'm just saying that the potential for that exchange is limited on both the small and large scale. But we exist on a scale which is closer to the large than the small. We are bigger than we are small, so there is lots of space in between us.

>>957892
1) Are you saying my definition is invalid because it is not finite? That it can expand with further discoveries? Is there a problem with not allowing anything to be outside of the universe by definition?

>There are no closed sub systems of the universe.
Exactly. If they were trully closed then they wouldn't affect the rest of the universe and thus wouldn't be part of it.

>>957906
All false things are outside the universe.

>>957906
You're treating the universe like it is a set. But the set of everything is not a set at all, it is a class of sets.

>>957892
WTH?
>Your definition is fucking stupid
>Proceeds to agree with definition in argument against it

>>957902
And? The relation to each scale is meaningless. What matters is the speed of light and the furthest extent of our temporal cone of influence. A 100 billion years from now when the expansion of the universe prevents our cones of influence form affecting anything else one will find that both our cones are almost identical in area of affect.

Do you get me?

>>957923
No, he really didn't.

>>957916
Ya, because they don't affect the universe. If they did affect the universe then they wouldn't be false. :)

>>957929
We can't change things below the Planck scale, our cone of influence does not extend to it. Get me?

>>957919
I'm not familiar with set theory, but if the definition of a set is that it cannot include everything then I am not using set theory here.

I mean what if it is found that there is nothing next to nothing beyond the observable universe which is usually defined simply as "the universe". Does the fact that the observable universe include everything mean we can't call it the universe?

>>957937
I simply don't understand how that is relevant. Hell, I don't even know what you are saying. We didn't cover anything like that in quantum mechanics. We can affect any particle within that cone of influence I was talking about. I don't see how the Planck distance plays into anything.

fuck you disappoint me /sci/. every day i come on, see an obvious troll thread and think psh this won't last, and come on later and find the thread thriving. for a bunch of smart people you sure are retarded

>>957943
>>957943
"what if it is found that there is next to nothing beyond the observable universe" *

>>957950
But as always the discussion has drifted away from the troll topic. It's all good.

>>957943
Hypothesizing about finding stuff outside of the observable universe is similar to asking if the set of all sets that are not members of themselves is a member of itself.

>>957906
>Is there a problem with not allowing anything to be outside of the universe by definition?

YES, Nothing is outside the universe. The universe if defined for its "closure property".
If you take away the "closure of the universe" then the concept of the universe becomes meaningless, and you are just talking about a region of space.

Physically there cannot exist a closed region (totally isolated from another region) of the universe its basic QM and group theory, like I said.

>If they were trully closed then they wouldn't affect the rest of the universe and thus wouldn't be part of it.

Your logic is just all fucked up. Your trying an "if then" conditional statement, but your doing it wrong.

>>957955
But it's like you are defining a set as a closed system in this instance which is ridiculous because the universe has no completely closed systems within it... then again, what if there is some "realm" that we cannot affect but that we can observe, kind of like a reverse event horizon but even more absolute then the theoretically permeable event horizon of a black hole (Hawking says information can escape a black hole last time I checked).

Maybe you should just drop the connections you are trying to make with set theory. Do you still have a problem with my definition of the universe? If so what would you prefer?

>>957943
>observable universe which is usually defined simply as "the universe".

Shit Negro, Thats why you sound like a retard. No, "the universe" is not the same thing as the "observable universe".

Only science laymen and school children refer to the "observable universe" as "the universe". LAMO!

ITT: faggots don't know that the universe is spatially flat, it's total energy content is zero and, on a large enough scale there is still "nothing" at all here, like it has always been and always will be

>>957967
>YES, Nothing is outside the universe. The universe if defined for its "closure property".
>If you take away the "closure of the universe" then the concept of the universe becomes meaningless, and you are just talking about a region of space.
*sigh*
The more you keep talking the more you agree with me and yet you keep on saying more loudly that I am wrong. I am saying that the universe by my definition is the smallest closed system. That may sound like I am inferring that there is something beyond that but I'm really not. Earlier I said that anything that doesn't affect us (ie the universe) cannot be said to exist.

>>957985
Physicists like to simplify things but I think you are simplifying out some non-trivial stuff.

>>957978
There are infinite sets, and the members of sets satisfy predicates but the assumption that for every predicate there is a set of all things which satisfy it leads to paradox.

>>957978
>some "realm" that we cannot affect but that we can observe

No, this is not possible. You need to study up on QM little guy, cause you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

I already told you that the prinicipal of locality doens't apply to real physics. (Ie there is no locally closed system).

Globallly there is one and only one closed system....its called "THE UNIVERSE".

Bell's inequalities up in this BITCH!

>>957967
>>957984
Maybe I would know what the fuck you are arguing if you perhaps dropped the whole S. Jackson shtick and gave me a definition of the universe to contend with mine.

>>957992
>some non-trivial stuff.
like what?

>>957988
Shit negro,

You think I read the whole thread,
I've been busy eating a Tasty Burger

>>957996
>You need to study up on QM
I've taken QM I, what is your education?

>I already told you that the prinicipal of locality doens't apply to real physics. (Ie there is no locally closed system).
I'm not saying there is. I just made a cursory note about something outside of current theory and you freak out. It is not the basis of my argument, just a random tangent.

>Globallly there is one and only one closed system....its called "THE UNIVERSE".
Which is exactly what my definition says. Can you stop yelling at me about me being wrong and then turning around and agreeing with me? Are you an intellectual masochist or something?

>>958007
If you find it more important to keep up your running joke than to actually participate in the discussion then I'm not going to discuss anything with you. Goodnight/morning.

reported
and bumped because the fact that people are replying and not reporting and letting it rot means you deserve this fucking thread

>>957999
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying:
>the universe is spatially flat
That there is an inconsequential amount of matter in the universe (not enough to bend space).
>it's total energy content is zero
The universe is mostly empty and thus everything in it is inconsequential.
>on a large enough scale there is still "nothing" at all here
Same as above.
You have simplified the system until it has no characteristics. You can over simplify the universe any more than that.

>>958018
>participate in the discussion

What discussion? We both seem to agree on the def of the universe (you just have a werid fucked up way of saying it, but I think I get you now).

>>958025
Your post is ironic because one can report you for having an image that is not worksafe.

saging to add to the clusterfuck

>>958035
and yet it serves the purpose of forcing you faggots to see what I in fact see every time I find you nerd raging to blatant trolling like a two year old.

>>958025
WTF IS THIS FROM? SOME WERID HORROR COMIC? WTF?

>>958032
>agree
You haven't said you agree with me. You keep saying my definition is wrong. I pointed out that you apparently didn't understand my definition because yours mathed mine. You then fail to agree with my assessment only to act like you did say just that as if I can read your mind.

Goodnight friend... And I dislike Pulp Fiction.

>>958031
>Correct me if I'm wrong
You are completely wrong
The total Energy content of the Universe is zero, not because there is so few energy, but because the energys cancel each other out.
Also spatially flat doesn't mean what you think it means.
The amount of energy in all matter is cancel out by the negative gravitational energy.
Therefore, the net energy of the universe hasn't changed during the big bang, therefore no energy was created during that event

>>958044
u MAD?

>>958039
You will find the current discussion has nothing to do with the OP's troll topic.

>>958049
>because the energys cancel each other out.
>implying there is negative energy
Is this Half-Life?

>Also spatially flat doesn't mean what you think it means.
It can mean several things. Are you saying the universe is infinite (ie doesn't curl into a 4th dimension to create a finite but unbounded universe)?

> negative gravitational energy.
Where in the wide wide world of sports did you hear "negative gravitational energy" and that it applies to the net energy of the universe?

>net energy of the universe hasn't changed during the big bang
No one said any energy was created by the big bang, it simply hasn't changed. However one must define the the energy in the universe to be zero at the instant of the big bang which I don't believe many physicists do, though I'm open to thoughts on the matter.

>>958067
I'm this guy... and I've got to go. Sorry.

>>958067
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063
http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

>>958067
>>958070
Yeah, you have no idea what you are talking about