Why the world might end on Wednesday Sept. 17, 2008
The Big Bang theory states that everything started from nothing, except for two particles that collide causing an explosion that causes the universe. I’ll look the other way for a moment and won’t ask where the two particles originated from, nor how something even as small as two particles is suppose to be considered nothing instead of something and what force put them into motion. Oh, also, we should not ask the question of why there are not trillions of big bangs happening over and over right now in our midst since there are now a gazillion, gazillion, gazillion particles in motion. That’s OK to skip over all those questions when forming your hypothesis, unless you’re approaching any other subject than opposing Creationism.
Now on to the topic subject. On Wednesday, these same scientists who believe the big bang caused everything into existence, are going to try and re-create the same chain reaction explosion. Their machine is called a super collider and is located in Switzerland. A couple different results are possible. A) They will succeed and cause another big bang destroying everything, or B) Nothing will happen.
If you scientists succeed, then congratulations, you were right and you are all complete morons for destroying everything. If nothing happens, can you once and for all, shut the hell up, you were wrong. Either way, you are insane for attempting to replicate destruction you so adamantly believe happened and we non-scientist would be bigger fools to keep teaching evolution only, in schools and universities.
My Groups
-
Rage & Violence Against Conservatives Updated: 12 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Grrr. I actually had to sign up here to leave this comment, so rest assured it meant something to me. >-(
Sir,
I found your first post courtesy of Instapundit, and was instantly hooked. In it you showed expertise, writing ability, and an admirable balance in your points. It made me happy, and as soon as I got home from work I subscribed to your feed.
Only to receive this post.
And with this post I'm very close to unsubbing again. If you are not good at math, and if you believe a black hole slightly smaller than a muon can eat the solar system that's fine. Opine all you'd like. You're wrong, and terribly so. The particles created by this device will show us things that have only been seen in equations until now, and will make possible technologies that might replace greenhouse gassing alternative, but you can be against it if you'd like.
If I unsub, it will be because you've proven here a willingness to opine with force and conviction about things about which you know nothing. How can I be sure you're not spouting imaginative conspiracy nutiness about Hollywood, if you're willing to do so about something we both know you've never tried to understand?
Please guard your credibility.
Every time I see a blank profile picture, I can't help but think of...well...something headless.
Your blogs have been excellent. I hope you don't mind, I posted your information and a link of the ABC News article on my own blog.
This silence of conservatives in Hollywood greatly concerns, intrigues, and enrages me. I also feel quite exasperated, frustrated, irritated, and vexed'ated. And some other words I'd need a thesaurus to describe.
For the last two weeks I've been working on an article about this subject for a national publication. I'm a freelance writer. I've spoken with many influential names in the industry suffering from the same gagged treatment.
I'd love to speak with you on this subject.
Honestly, I don't know what I could do to help. The magazine who hired my services has decided against the publication of the article due to the conservative tone and their decision not to "take sides."
So, in fact, I may not be able to help at all. But I'd like to try.
You don't need to identify yourself to me. And I'm not looking for an interview. I'd just love to converse with you on the subject and possibly get some ideas. I'm big on ideas. They usually precede greatness, as well as destruction. Funny how that works.
Please feel free to contact me via email. I'd be happy to share with you the names of individuals I've been speaking with in the industry. They have gone on-record so it is not a breach of privacy. And I'd love to discuss your struggles in this area.
Thanks for your time Headless,
Tara Lynn Thompson
www.taralynnthompson.com
Nice post.
The level of creduvlity people have for the "everything came from nothing" nonsense is really amazing.
Nowhere in life would he accept causeless events, EXCEPT in the origin of everything!
Sounds confusing? No! This is "modern science".
For all darwiniacs who might argue <i>"Quantum Mechanics is filled with causeless events"</i>, let me just say that because we don't know the cause it doesn't mean it's causeless,
I am not sure I follow your logic here....the author points out a very interesting possibility, I personally am inclined to believe nothing will happen, based primarily on the fact the I do not believe everything was created from nothing.
I am also not sure how you can connect this with greenhouse gases, while there is a relationship between physics and chemistry , this connections seems to be a stretch, please help my understand how you are connecting them.
And if this experiment creates a small black hole as you so described then you are indicating that the 2 so called particles that created the universe must have been very large.
(I posted, but don't see my comment. Trying again.)
> That's not the subject of this blog.
Wow. But the LHC is part of the Hollywood experience?
--
Level set. I am a conservative Christian, and want your powerful information about Hollywood to receive maximum respect. I'm not trying to start a discussion about the LHC. In fact, I looked all over for a private email address before I made my first comment. Your message sounds very important, so I'm hoping you won't let your interest in the LHC sound like you assume you have expertise when it's obvious you do not. It would devalue your expert opinion on the subjects you really know.
I have explored the arguments for young versus old earth, creation versus evolution, and big bang versus some kind of built-in history created by God. There is not enough data to form a reliable answer yet. Really. Even scripture does not reliably enough state that a day was 24 hours in Genesis to found an argument there. (God created light in the "morning" but the Earth is round, so it was not morning everywhere. It's just ambiguous is all I'm saying.) The cosmic background microwave radiation exists for some odd reason, and a million pieces of math all point to everything starting in one place 14 billion years ago. It's truly ambiguous.
No one suggests that everything came from a couple small particles. Current suggestions have a universe's-worth of energy/matter pouring into a rift in a 4 dimensional membrane, opening it to one or more of 9 dimensions. The fact that a universe requires a good deal of energy is understood by scientists, and an explanation of where that energy first came from has everyone stumped - even Christians. It's all well and good to say it came from God, but so will your breakfast tomorrow and you certainly want to know more about where tomorrow's breakfast is coming from. You'll base that knowledge on prior knowledge you have of where yesterday's breakfast came from. Even so, scientists have reason for wanting to know where everything came from.
The Big Bang required an indescribable amount of energy against which the LHC is not even noticable. It is incapable of producing the amount of energy it would take to absorb everything into a black hole. The power of a black hole is gravity, and the practically weightless elements that will form these instantaneous black holes will not have any more mass than they had before they got squished together as tightly as they would be in a true black hole. A black hole made of 2 muons still doesn't weigh any more than 2 muons (sort of, E=mc2 and all that). It just takes up a lot less space than 2 muons would.
When the black hole is created, mathematically expected particles should be released, particles that have never been observed before. If those particles are exactly what they expect, then the LHC will have proven some very edgy math. If they are different, it will open whole new fields of investigation to some very smart people. Neither answer will prove or disprove the Big Bang. Either will excite the whole scientific world and eventually result in ... uh ... really cool advances in movie recording and playback technology. ;-)
Interesting how you're able to go on and on about greenhouse gases and dimension rifts which was not the objective of the subject, yet I'm not suppose to comment on the subject at all because my stated concentration as a blogger is insight on Hollywood.
I'm also fascinated how some people are incapable of addressing or even acknowledging something they've been confronted with (read: scientists throwing out their normal rules of reasoning). But instead, misdirecting a conversation away from the subject they apparently can't answer. This is truly the age of the irreconcilable.
You said: "No one suggests that everything came from a couple small particles."
Wrong wrong WRONG. I was taught this in elementary school, junior high, high school and college here in the USA. Also Super Collider is paired with Big Bang in almost every search result on the subject. Who are you trying to kid and why?
The reason I've taken on this topic is because I have to listen to these arrogant assertions all day long amongst the enraged show biz people here who turn around and call you a moron for challenging what they try to portray as fact. How about the rest of you in what they like to call the "fly-over states"? Do you have to endure this kind of treatment from co-workers as well in your cities and industries?
> I'm also fascinated how some people are incapable of addressing or even acknowledging something they've been confronted with (read: scientists throwing out their normal rules of reasoning).
OK.
Scientists are following the normal rules of logic. The want to know how things happened, so they attempt to replicate the environment in which it happened. This is normal.
> You said: "No one suggests that everything came from a couple small particles."
>> Wrong wrong WRONG.
From the Wikipedia article on the Big Bang.
"The essential idea is that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past and continues to expand to this day."
The initial condition of the universe is not assumed to be "2 particles", but a very hot something or other, containing all the matter of the present-day universe. Sometimes schools teach scientific theory inadequately. You can trust my representation of current beliefs. It is correct.
> Also Super Collider is paired with Big Bang in almost every search result on the subject.
Non-sequitor. The LHC is indeed attempting to learn about the Big Bang. There's no point here.
> Do you have to endure this kind of treatment from co-workers as well in your cities and industries?
Hmmm.
I live in a flyover state, and I find that people who have opinions different from mine usually treat me quite nicely. I wonder why your experience might be different?
Best of luck on your quest.
When you mention that the earth is round and when God created light it was not daytime everywhere. Here is the King James passage:
1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
If you read this carefully, you will see that the earth was not created until the second day when he separated it from Heaven, however the earth did not have form until the third day, we can safely ascertain that the earth received its shape of "round" on the third day, two days after he created light
.
Perhaps you may recall the term "Group Think" from your college days of sociology 101. I live in a virtual vacuum from conservatism and those that believe in intelligent design. Their contempt looks upon us as a virus invading their idea of utopia. You usually can't get past asking 3 gently questions before they're veins are bulging in their foreheads.
How much you wanna guess this is interpreted as somehow confirming the irrational randomness of it all?
Trenches: "I was taught this in elementary school, junior high, high school and college here in the USA."
No. No you weren't. :-) It's not possible that four different levels of education all got the very first premise of the Big Bang completely wrong. Repeat, that is NOT part of the Big Bang Theory.
( Besides, what elementary school teaches Big Bang Theory?? :-) )
All to say, there are reasons to collide two particles at very high speed, but none of those reasons are to see if another Big Bang occurs.
Проститутки Москвы Взлом, хакеры, защита заработок в сети, форекс, инвестиции rihanna песни, rihanna клипы, rihanna фото белый каталог Рестораны в Москве, развлечения Москвы Игры, игровые новости Бесплатный белый каталог Фильмы онлайн