Jump to content


Photo

"A World Without End"


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Demon0f1nsanity

Demon0f1nsanity
  • New Members
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Two steps ahead
  • Projects:I project projectiles across projected projectiles on projectors project,if you know what I mean
  •  My favourite collour is blue....no yellooooooooooowww.......

Posted 12 June 2015 - 11:44 AM

That may be true,but you said "no energy left",which I think is incorrect way to say it,unless you are reffering to thermodynamic free energy,but that also is not precisely correct term and it can not be considered as energy in its full meaning. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it changes its forms from one to other. this is law of conservation of energy. so we can say energy is infinite.



#22 Irenë Hawnetyne

Irenë Hawnetyne

    -

  • Hosted
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 12 June 2015 - 03:30 PM

Line one of Wikipedia entry:

The heat death of the universe is a historically suggested ultimate fate of the universe in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy.

So yes, there would presumably be energy, but I suppose just not in the form of heat or movement.


"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."

 

Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort


#23 Demon0f1nsanity

Demon0f1nsanity
  • New Members
  • 4 posts
  • Location:Two steps ahead
  • Projects:I project projectiles across projected projectiles on projectors project,if you know what I mean
  •  My favourite collour is blue....no yellooooooooooowww.......

Posted 12 June 2015 - 03:50 PM

That is,if you believe in that mumbo jumbo...I personally believe in jediism,because of its logic



#24 Irenë Hawnetyne

Irenë Hawnetyne

    -

  • Hosted
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 06:10 AM

I don't really know what'll happen, so I don't believe in one over another. What do you believe?


"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."

 

Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort


#25 -SilverBane-

-SilverBane-

    Inactive Noob

  • Project Team
  • 474 posts
  • Location:Bucharest
  • Projects:Life
  •  Mapper & Coder

Posted 15 June 2015 - 03:52 PM

Deep disscussions here; but I agree with Pasidon, big-bang theory is just absurd.....I don't believe in any of them too much but that one is just too absurd to be a viable solution...Like nothing was since forever then BANG... something happened... why...it's got no arguments to prove it...


2qm3dd5.jpg


#26 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 15 June 2015 - 06:38 PM

No arguments? Have you read the first thing about it? Obviously it isn't proven in scientific terms, but the theory has been rounded out and developed pretty well over the years. There's definitely arguments in favor of it. Doesn't mean you have to believe it, of course. It just isn't dismissed that easily.

 

Wikipedia's entry is decent, listing the 'arguments' and the problems associated with the theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


No fuel left for the pilgrims


#27 Irenë Hawnetyne

Irenë Hawnetyne

    -

  • Hosted
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 07:09 PM

The thing is, describing any of the theories surrounding the origin of the universe as absurd is very narrow-minded, because just as each of them has their strengths, they will have their weaknesses, the uniting factor being that as yet there is no proof of one being the one. I could argue as much for, say, Copleston's argument for God's creation of the world as I could for a Dawkinian approach, and no-one would be any further, and equally they are absurd arguments when thought of objectively.


"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."

 

Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort


#28 -SilverBane-

-SilverBane-

    Inactive Noob

  • Project Team
  • 474 posts
  • Location:Bucharest
  • Projects:Life
  •  Mapper & Coder

Posted 15 June 2015 - 07:34 PM

Conclusion: We can't find out now (and probably not soon) what is the real one :p

So, everyone is free to believe in any of them... but that won't change our little lives, so why should we care that much...?I personally have much better work to do than brainstorm about something I can't affect anyway and atm it doesn't affects me either. Just sayin'...


2qm3dd5.jpg


#29 Irenë Hawnetyne

Irenë Hawnetyne

    -

  • Hosted
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 15 June 2015 - 09:25 PM

I personally have much better work to do than brainstorm about something I can't affect anyway and atm it doesn't affects me either. Just sayin'...

 

To the contrary, you bothered to post :p


"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."

 

Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort


#30 -SilverBane-

-SilverBane-

    Inactive Noob

  • Project Team
  • 474 posts
  • Location:Bucharest
  • Projects:Life
  •  Mapper & Coder

Posted 16 June 2015 - 06:35 AM

Well, I just stated my opinion ^_^

2qm3dd5.jpg


#31 OmegaBolt

OmegaBolt

    Lost In The New Real

  • Hosted
  • 6,273 posts
  • Location:London, England
  • Projects:Red-Resurrection
  •  O'Bolt

Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:26 PM

I could argue as much for, say, Copleston's argument for God's creation of the world as I could for a Dawkinian approach, and no-one would be any further, and equally they are absurd arguments when thought of objectively.

 

You really couldn't. Comparing a creationist theory to a scientific one just doesn't work, even if they all have holes. The creationist theories always involve purely logical bungie jumps that have no relation to the real world (and which mostly results in hanging themselves at the end of the rope) while at least the scientific theories all use physical processes in an attempt to come up with the simplest possible answer. One is purely mental gymnastics and the other attempts to come up with a possible origin that reflects real world processes.

 

Almost by definition the scientific one is closer to the truth because it actually involves the outside world we're trying to explain.


Edited by OmegaBolt, 16 June 2015 - 12:27 PM.

Posted Image

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


#32 Mathijs

Mathijs

    Post-modern Shaman

  • Network Leaders
  • 13,756 posts
  • Projects:Age of the Ring
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Leader

Posted 16 June 2015 - 03:34 PM

Yep. I'm not a fan of the idea that somehow every theory about a certain as-of-yet unsolved problem must be equal because none provide a conclusive answer. It's the same kind of conflict-avoiding 'logic' people use when they say stuff like 'all religions are equally bad', 'climate change deniers deserve equal airtime', etc. These are pacifying statements that serve no purpose beyond avoiding the taking of sides.

 

When two 'theories' (I use quotation marks because a scientific theory =/= a religious theory) try to solve the same question in different ways, it is very much possible that one or the other is closer to the truth. Just because neither provides a complete and quantifiable solution doesn't mean they're equally probable. 


No fuel left for the pilgrims


#33 Irenë Hawnetyne

Irenë Hawnetyne

    -

  • Hosted
  • 3,073 posts

Posted 23 June 2015 - 07:06 PM

Fair points, I have to agree with you there. Didn't quite consider it like that.


"Everyone's a hero when there's nowhere left to run."

 

Auxiliary Skarn, 2333rd Cohort





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users