Science proves God

[Professor Smarmiarty]

For a 1000 years, we revealed in the glorious truth that God built everything in circles. But then foolish misguided scientists tried to tell us all our apparent natural circles were not actually circles. God is dead we claimed. Huzzah! We cheered in our dictator, we clapped as he overthrew all we knew, all that was right, we welcomed the steel ajack boot.

BUT WE WERE WRONG: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/25/electrons-round-cosmos


For a 1000 years we believed in the glorious truth that God created all from a void, that we emerged. But then then foolish misguided scientists tried to tell us all our apparent creation had a regular source. God is dead we claimed. Huzzah! We lay at the feet of our devil, we blinded ourselfs to all we knew, all that was right, we gobbled his scraps hungrily.

BUT WE WERE WRONG: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

[TDK]

I don't find it at all surprising that the electron is round. What other shape should it be?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Of course, God wouldn't make triangular electronic charges. I commend your orthodox position and shall not burn you for heresy

[Grimpond]

waiiiiiiiiit wait wait wait

wait


we were previously under the impression that the electron wasn't round?!

[Jagos]

Oh please, not the God particle...

[Professor Smarmiarty]

God is not a particle. Why are you being so ridiculous.

waiiiiiiiiit wait wait wait

wait


we were previously under the impression that the electron wasn't round?!


Only if you believed foolish science!



We used to believe that the spiritual plane and the material plane could be unified, indivisible. Foolish Nestorians challenged this belief but were easily defeated. However in the dark ages they sought solace and some say proof in the false trickeries of science. BUT THEY WERE WRONG. Energy and matter are indivisble. LIKE JESUS.

[Archbio]

God is not a particle. Why are you being so ridiculous.

Yeah, everybody knows she's a molecule.

[Bard The 5th LW]

According to my 8th grade science textbook, the elctron is and always was round! So this is no new discovery as far as thats concerned!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Well I assume you went to a US school where fortunately they still teach the godly sciences. Some of us were stuck in heathen propaganda pits.

[Bard The 5th LW]

A pity how far behind you lot are.

[Seil]

God is not a particle. Why are you being so ridiculous.

...God is an Electron? Electrons are round. ...Are you calling God fat?

[TDK]

God takes up the entire universe. He is fat as hell! (lolpun)

[A Zarkin' Frood]

I always was under the assumption that if there were a god it would be the universe. And it wouldn't be our creator, just that which let us happen and didn't bother to scratch that itch that is us. Of course, I may be totally wrong in this assumption I came up with on the spot just now.

EDIT: Fuck, back to the point. Yes. If god exists, it's pretty damn fat.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

That sounds suspiciously like the teachings of Marcion. EXCOMMUNICATE

[Azisien]

That lab looks like Torchwood kinda.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

Teachings of who? Man, I can come up with other random theories on the nature of whatever too if you don't like that one. I have tons of those.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Imma excommunicate all of them Ie link to them to previosu excommunicated ideas. I am not the pope orthe partiarch (super pope as I call him) clearly.

[ChaoticBrain]

Yeah, everybody knows she's a molecule.

but how can molecules have vaginas this doesn't make sense you guys

[Seil]

Yeah, everybody knows they pee standing up.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

There are now 777 threads in General Discussion.

IS SIGN

[Marc v4.0]

I don't find it at all surprising that the electron is round. What other shape should it be?

I'm not really finding how this is worthy news, either.

[Archbio]

A long-chain molecule, duh.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It is very relevant and newsworthy but if I explained why the pope will come stab me with a cross. As in beyonnd the god loves circles explanation. Which is the best explanation.

[Marc v4.0]

It is very relevant and newsworthy but if I explained why the pope will come stab me with a cross. As in beyonnd the god loves circles explanation. Which is the best explanation.

...I know you are doing a -thing- here, with this, but seriously. Why should the round shape of the electron be coming as a shock.

[Jesus]

Well hey thanks I guess.

[TDK]

Jesus is also fat

Follow me here.

Lamb of god, right? And jesus, being son of god, is automatically the best at everything.

Well, the best lamb is a fat lamb. Same with any other animal. Cow, pig, whatevs. Fatter animal, more meat.

THEREFORE, jesus, being the ultimate lamb, is extremely fat.

[BitVyper]

How has this thread gone this far without puffs of logic being brought up?

[Azisien]

...I know you are doing a -thing- here, with this, but seriously. Why should the round shape of the electron be coming as a shock.

We probably need Sithdarth and others in here but as I understand it, it would have made a great deal of sense at our current understanding for the universe to basically not exist. Since the Big Bang would have created matter and antimatter is pretty much exact proportions, it all should have just annihilated.

I mean dark matter and dark energy [i.e. we dunno what the FUCK matter/energy] aside, the universe does seem pretty empty. Without digressing to that, one thing that would help have a "matter wins" universe work out would be a slightly deformed electron. Electrons are thought to be like a cloud of virtual particles, and have spin, and I don't really know the full abstract of it, but I liken it in a macroscopic sense to a million little balls in a near-sphere, spinning constantly. You would expect such a sphere to deform slightly based on the momentum of the spin.

But according to Torchwood labs, it's stupid spherical. So that means our theories on why the universe exists as it does are probably on the cusp of needing more overhaul. And by our theories I probably only mean the Standard Model and whatever mods they have installed right now. Therefore science proves a monotheistic, abrahamic God. QED.

Personally I am hoping my explanation is awful enough that it'll trick one of the physicists on here into doing a proper explanation. We heathens do have the best tricks.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

We probably need Sithdarth and others in here but as I understand it, it would have made a great deal of sense at our current understanding for the universe to basically not exist. Since the Big Bang would have created matter and antimatter is pretty much exact proportions, it all should have just annihilated.


Just to make clear here: as the universe began there was a release of two sets of things; Matter and Antimatter. Collisions between matter and antimatter cause the destruction of both and since at the start of the universe it was considerably more condensed than it is now, the matter and antimatter must have been in extreme proximity for a time.

Therefore there must be a reason that there was matter left over once the antimatter was gone. The prevalent explanation before this was that there was more matter than antimatter, but as Azisien says this has thrown a wrench into the works since there's no reason for that to have happened anymore.

[Marc v4.0]

Collisions between matter and antimatter cause the violent conversion into energy destruction of both

-cough-

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

-cough-

Look.
Two things go in, neither of them come out, that's goddamn destruction.
You don't say a building has violently converted into a pile of rubble and ash.

[Marc v4.0]

It is conversion.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

It is conversion.

Your face is about to get converted in a minute.

[Marc v4.0]

It did already

Into smug satisfaction.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

It did already

Into smug satisfaction.

You forgot to carry the one.
Into pain.

[Marc v4.0]

Roll your initiative, knave!

[Archbio]

It is goddamn annihilation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation)

So, in a sense, you're both right. But I prefer to think of it as you being both wrong.

[Aerozord]

of course matter and energy are the same thing.

that being said, tendency for objects being round should be expected, gravity draws all things inward including itself. Sphere is natural form. For the most part they only things that are not round are such because of a direct attempt not to be such as molecules. Only time something is not round is when another force alters it from that state.

[Doc ock rokc]

This wasn't a problem down here. My favorite chemistry teacher said that it was only sense that a electron is round due to the spherical nature of most other points of energy such as gravity.

[Azisien]

I'm fairly certain gravity is nowhere near the dominant force at play on the scale of an electron.

[Aerozord]

I'm fairly certain gravity is nowhere near the dominant force at play on the scale of an electron.

not a matter of it being dominant, unless another force opposes it gravity will make all things round. I just dont see why any of the others would do so

[Magus]

Listen I'm still trying to grasp the fact that light is both a particle and a wave at the same time or whatever. And sometimes photons can be in two places at once, I guess, according to this Quantum theory mechanics stuff. Why are they bringing up antimatter again? To hurt my stupid brain? Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet? Last I heard it was invisible and unmeasurable, i.e., stuff might not even exist and that particle accelerator might be the one of the most expensive waste of money ever. I heard they might have had some antimatter over there for a few seconds so far, so did they figure out a way to measure it with our material measuring devices, then?

[Sithdarth]

Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet? Last I heard it was invisible and unmeasurable, i.e., stuff might not even exist

Maybe about a century ago.

I heard they might have had some antimatter over there for a few seconds so far, so did they figure out a way to measure it with our material measuring devices, then?

Seriously? I hope there is just sarcasm I'm missing here. Antimatter is exactly every bit like normal matter the electric charge is just opposite.

[Magus]

See this is why people who pay for science funding (politicians), should have science degrees. Because most politicians have no more idea about any of this than me, that is why science funding is a miniscule part of the national budget.

I mean, you are saying all matter has an electrical charge, that it is unitary, and antimatter has the opposite of that. And yet there are negatively charged ions and positively charged ions and electrons and neutrons and protons and shit within atoms. So is the charge of matter actually "electrical" or...?

Unless you think they teach quantum shit in high school or whatever. I'm a liberal arts English major, see. Like I said, I have a hard time just understanding how light is a particle and a wave at the same time. And despite hours spent on Wikipedia I am not much wiser!

Thanks for the help, though, I'm glad they can measure antimatter and have proved it exists. I thought it was still in the "theoretical" category.

EDIT: Ooh, never mind, I found an article that explains antimatter comes in all the same forms as matter, such as anti-electrons (electron with a positive charge, basically a particle that has the same exact mass as an electron but a positive charge, thus they would annihilate each other), anti-protons (proton with a negative charge), etc. Kind of a basic thing to understand but it makes it a lot clearer now.

...what's the antimatter equivalent of a neutron, though?

[Professor Smarmiarty]

It's an antineutron. Same charge as as a neutron (0) but it is made of antiquarks rther than quarks.
How can anyone trust this ridiculous god science. Of course we have "antimatter" and it's made up of "antielectrons" and "antiprotons" and it makes "antidogs" and "anticats". Foolish!

[Meister]

http://i.imgur.com/2WwHy.jpg
Part of the laser system used by scientists at Imperial College to measure the shape of the electron. Photograph: Joe Smallman/Imperial College

Bullshit you guys are in there all day dropping E and playing trance.

[Pip Boy]

Bullshit you guys are in there all day dropping E and playing trance.

Yeah. Science.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Did they even figure out a way to measure antimatter yet?

Yes (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2011/06/06/cern-physicists-trap-antimatter-for-16-minutes-40092999/).

As for light, think of it like this; there are 2 theories used to talk about light, particle theory and wave theory. Particle theory is used to talk about how light is generated, wave theory is used to talk about how light is propogated. Trying to use either theory to talk about the opposite thing doesn't work.

Light (photons) are created when energy is applied to an atom, causing electrons in the outer shells of those atoms to change orbit, which releases packets of energy, called photons.

The particles then travel through space in all directions in the form of a wave. They're still particles (or rather, packets of miniscule energy, since all particles are basically energy anyway), and there's still countless numbers of them, they're just arranged into wave like patterns. Obviously there's more to it than that but that's the general gist.

[TDK]

But actually (according to some theories, at least) what it comes down to is that all particles are also waves, but it only becomes evident when they go really fast! The 'wavelength' of, say, an apple sitting on your desk, which is actually going fairly fast in an absolute sense - through space, not on earth - would have a minuscule wavelength because it is going fairly slow in the grand scheme of things. However, light moves very fast, as you might have heard! So its function as a wave is very evident.

This is also the reason that electrons are waves. They similarly move quite fast (I'm not sure about their actual speed to be honest)

[Azisien]

We're working on it! Last I checked, some scientists had shown the wave nature of fairly small molecules. Next up, big molecules. Then maybe a virus. Bacteria. Protists. A platyhelminth or two.

Cats.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

We used to believe that the movement of the heavens was celestial objects, angles in flight. Then they told us they could explain such movements with gravity.
But in the last ten years we have discovered hundreds of planets without stars, drifting through space on angelic wings. Where is your gravity now Newton!

[Aerozord]

I always find it sad that people still believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. Just because you can explain something doesn't mean its not beyond humanity. In fact according to our science not only can there be multiple planes of existence but if a being did have complete and absolute knowledge of universal design manipulating it to the degree of God is possible.

Heck assuming you can in actuality continually advance and evolve the creation of a god like being is the natural conclusion for a sentient and curious species

[ChaoticBrain]

I always find it sad that people still believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. Just because you can explain something doesn't mean its not beyond humanity. In fact according to our science not only can there be multiple planes of existence but if a being did have complete and absolute knowledge of universal design manipulating it to the degree of God is possible.

Heck assuming you can in actuality continually advance and evolve the creation of a god like being is the natural conclusion for a sentient and curious species

The problem is that every religion is founded on the assumption that the featured deity/ies actually give two fucks about humanity.

[TDK]

They are mutually exclusive because believing in science means not believing in things without evidence, which is the basis of religion, the 'argument from ignorance'.

"I don't know how the universe got here, so there's like a god thing. Also, god things are things that exist. And they are sentient. And benevolent." etc.

Also specifically in the case of abrahamic religion, the bible and associated books wildly contradict known science, so there's that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The problem is that every religion is founded on the assumption that the featured deity/ies actually give two fucks about humanity.

A good chunk of the gnostics would disagree with that. Deists too. And lots of other ones I not going to think up right now.

They are mutually exclusive because believing in science means not believing in things without evidence, which is the basis of religion, the 'argument from ignorance'.

"I don't know how the universe got here, so there's like a god thing. Also, god things are things that exist. And they are sentient. And benevolent." etc.

Also specifically in the case of abrahamic religion, the bible and associated books wildly contradict known science, so there's that.

Way to ignore 1000s of years of theological studies which address these problems and give plenty of answers to thet hings you have raised.
Like this is pretty equivalent to me using greek notions of science to criticise science.

[Azisien]

Got some alarm bells going up over here about the fate of this thread on its current trajectory. I was personally having way more fun manhandling modern physics, too!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

If by manhandling you mean correctly interpreting as they impact on a moral guide to life, I agree.

[Azisien]

The imagery in my head was more like a bunch of dirty naked people tapping rocks on IBM Watson, so no I don't think that was it.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

But godliness is cleanliness. Unless you are pointing to everyone in this thread who was not me. Then I agree. Plato can see your souls and they are BLACK.

[Azisien]

Well of course they are, they're just silhouettes in the cave like the rest of us.

[Aerozord]

They are mutually exclusive because believing in science means not believing in things without evidence, which is the basis of religion, the 'argument from ignorance'.

"I don't know how the universe got here, so there's like a god thing. Also, god things are things that exist. And they are sentient. And benevolent." etc.

Also specifically in the case of abrahamic religion, the bible and associated books wildly contradict known science, so there's that.

problem is science is the same way. Most of our science disproves or changes science of 100 years ago. Good bet, much of our science today will be changed in 100 more years. Science is based on assumptions and guesses, alot of it is just on theory as well.

Also on your statement that religion contradicts science, that is only valid if you assume its a religion that is not flexible and evolving. My own religion believes the bible is based on their limited ability to comprehend the information they were presented with. Simply put thousands of years ago they could never wrap their heads around evolution, big bang, these were people still working on the idea that women weren't property.

Just as naive as we are for our inability to grab onto the idea that in the vastness of universe we are the most advanced beings, heck they have issues that there is ANY other life out there

[Magus]

Did they ever scientifically solve Zeno's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes), anyway? That's all I would really need to know.

[Sithdarth]

Zeno Paradox was never a paradox. Rather it ignores the fact that as the distances traveled shrink so does the time. So when you take the limit you are able to discover that you can complete the infinite number of steps in a finite period of time. To put it another way your velocity remains constant and velocity matters when moving not just the distance traveled.

problem is science is the same way. Most of our science disproves or changes science of 100 years ago. Good bet, much of our science today will be changed in 100 more years. Science is based on assumptions and guesses, alot of it is just on theory as well.

True good science is never proven and doesn't really change. What happens is that it gets extended but what existed before is always still valid. The limits of that applicability are really what changes.

[Aerozord]

True good science is never proven and doesn't really change. What happens is that it gets extended but what existed before is always still valid. The limits of that applicability are really what changes.

yes it develops as our understanding does, religion can be the same way.

While its bad to ignore evidence just because it runs against your religious beliefs, its just as ignorant to dismiss religion simply because it runs against conventional scientific theory.

Religion should be treated the same way as science. Are aspects of it wrong? maybe, but until you have evidence that contradicts it, they are equally valid explanation to scientific explanations that are theories based on theories based on assumption that data we collected was even accurate.

[Eltargrim]

Religion should be treated the same way as science. Are aspects of it wrong? maybe, but until you have evidence that contradicts it, they are equally valid explanation to scientific explanations that are theories based on theories based on assumption that data we collected was even accurate.

a) That's one big assumption
b) lol religious data
c) That's not how it works. Otherwise my theory of pop-tart flavoured cats is just as valid as relativity.

[Marc v4.0]

a) That's one big assumption

SCIENCE!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

a) That's one big assumption
b) lol religious data
c) That's not how it works. Otherwise my theory of pop-tart flavoured cats is just as valid as relativity.

This is basically completely wrong at every point.

Also Zeno- what a dickhead.

[TDK]

ignorant to dismiss religion simply because it runs against conventional scientific theory.


what I don't even

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

what I don't even

Just you wait. Within about twenty years Religion is gonna be all oppressed and whatnot and a college of science cardinals with their sciencepope will humiliate, discredit or outright murder anyone who proposes religious answers to life's questions.

As long as that continues for about a thousand or so years I think we can call it square.

[Aerozord]

k... or we can just be open minded about different points of view.

just a suggestion

[TDK]

I do like the idea of the Sciencepope. Is he "chosen by divine mandate" (but actually elected) like the regular pope, or what?

[Aerozord]

I prefer the title "scientist supreme"

[Jesus]

I always find it sad that people still believe science and religion are mutually exclusive. Just because you can explain something doesn't mean its not beyond humanity. In fact according to our science not only can there be multiple planes of existence but if a being did have complete and absolute knowledge of universal design manipulating it to the degree of God is possible.

Heck assuming you can in actuality continually advance and evolve the creation of a god like being is the natural conclusion for a sentient and curious species

problem is science is the same way. Most of our science disproves or changes science of 100 years ago. Good bet, much of our science today will be changed in 100 more years. Science is based on assumptions and guesses, alot of it is just on theory as well.

Also on your statement that religion contradicts science, that is only valid if you assume its a religion that is not flexible and evolving. My own religion believes the bible is based on their limited ability to comprehend the information they were presented with. Simply put thousands of years ago they could never wrap their heads around evolution, big bang, these were people still working on the idea that women weren't property.

Just as naive as we are for our inability to grab onto the idea that in the vastness of universe we are the most advanced beings, heck they have issues that there is ANY other life out there

yes it develops as our understanding does, religion can be the same way.

While its bad to ignore evidence just because it runs against your religious beliefs, its just as ignorant to dismiss religion simply because it runs against conventional scientific theory.

Religion should be treated the same way as science. Are aspects of it wrong? maybe, but until you have evidence that contradicts it, they are equally valid explanation to scientific explanations that are theories based on theories based on assumption that data we collected was even accurate.

k... or we can just be open minded about different points of view.

just a suggestion

Dude why you gotta go dragging religion into everything?

[Aerozord]

Dude why you gotta go dragging religion into everything?

not everything, just science, cause I'm gnostic christian. So studying science is kind of part of my religion. Whole, enlightenment through the mind thing.

You should know this Jesus, according to the texts you were the one that said it

[Jesus]

Man I say a lot of shit.

[Aerozord]

hence why I go with the sect that believes most of it is inaccurate and we should seek out the truth

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Man didn't we murder all the gnostics? Our ancestors was lazy fucks.

[Aerozord]

Man didn't we murder all the gnostics? Our ancestors was lazy fucks.

yes, yes you did. But you didn't destroy all the "blasphemous" scriptures. hooray for dumb luck, cause seriously either there is a God or it was a very unlikely fluke those things were ever found. Some one literally found them while digging a hole

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Some one literally found them while digging a hole

Considering how many holes are dug every day it's not really all that statistically unlikely.

[Aerozord]

Considering how many holes are dug every day it's not really all that statistically unlikely.

this is sarcasm right? cause even over thousands of years not even a fraction of the Earth's surface has been dug, especially in middle east that isn't exactly the most developed area of the world. If it was we'd have alot more fossils

[BitVyper]

Some one literally found them while digging a hole

Okay, not to get into matters of providence or anything, but this is basically how every archaeological discovery ever is made. Like a good chunk of archaeology involves digging around more or less at random. Even when you have some direction, it's still typically a very large area.

Edit: Paleontology even moreso.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

yes, yes you did. But you didn't destroy all the "blasphemous" scriptures. hooray for dumb luck, cause seriously either there is a God or it was a very unlikely fluke those things were ever found. Some one literally found them while digging a hole

They were trying to feed them into hell. Put them in a hole, cover it up, hell will eat them. They were a bit primitive.

[Magus]

Actually Smarty they were trying to protect them from the fires of hell, carried by the pagan Romans upon the torches of evil! I think. Sounds like a plausible reason to stick a bunch of scrolls in a cave, anyway.

Hey look I'm an archaeologist, with theories! Nobel prize, please.

[Aerozord]

Actually Smarty they were trying to protect them from the fires of hell, carried by the pagan Romans upon the torches of evil! I think. Sounds like a plausible reason to stick a bunch of scrolls in a cave, anyway.

know you are joking but still wanted to point out they were buried to hide them from Roman Catholics, after the recently converted caesar declared all other sects blasphamous. And we all know how Romans handle people that disagree with them, right Jesus

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To be fair to the Romans, Jesus was pretty antagonistic to them, the classic kid kicking the boundaries to see how much he can get away with. And their recent history was full of popular revolts and demagogues. I'd sort out any who came along as well. It's practical.

[Magus]

He seemed more antagonistic towards the local Jewish Sanhedrin than the Romans. It was more that the Romans wanted to keep the local Jewish government happy to help maintain their own power hold. So kind of the same thing but more detached.