Is the bible a fairy tale?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3406 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
A person or object will always have mass. The amount something weighs depends on two things, how much mass the object has, and how strong the force of gravity is where the object is at. How much something weighs is determined by multiplying the mass of the object by the force of gravity acting on the object. Also, objects in space don't weigh anything because there isn't any gravity. So, even if an object is very large, if there isn't any gravity, it doesn't weigh anything.
This is a common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. There is certainly gravity is space. For example, the moon is held in orbit by the earth's gravity. A satellite is also. When an astronaut is in orbit, the earth's gravity is what keeps her in orbit. The earth is kept in orbit by the gravity from the sun. The reason things in orbit have no weight is that there is no *resistance* to gravity. You see, weight is the force we need to use to resist the force of gravity to keep something in place. Typically, this counter-force is provided by the ground, or something holding, or whatever. Even when falling, there is air resistance that opposes gravity to some extent, so there is weight (although initially the weight is very small).

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3407 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. There is no place that is not under the influence of gravity. You are pretty naive to believe that astronaut can be weightless.
Which only shows you don't understand what it means to be weightless.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3408 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we measure it but that's all.
We know that time is not a constant.
We know that gravity speeds time up.
We know that speed slows time down.
As a 2 dimensional object does not exist in our universe. Nothing can exist with out height or width or length or time.
You have to learn to be more precise. Speed and gravity slow time down only relatively speaking. For example, if you move past me at half the speed of light, I will see your clocks as moving slower. But, you will also see *my* clocks as moving slower. It is a symmetrical situation: you see me moving past you and I see you moving past me. Both sees the clocks moving past as marking time slower.

A similar thing happens with gravity. In essence, gravity is the same as acceleration, which is a change in speed. That change produces a relative slowing of time for *both* observers.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3410 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is gravity everywhere. Gravity is very weak so even though you may think your weightless you're not.
Gravity would need incredible sensitive tool to measure it in deep space but there is gravity everywhere.
Objects in a state of free fall or orbit are said to be weightless. The object's mass is the same, but it would register "0" on a scale. Weight varies depending on whether you are on Earth, the moon or in orbit. But your mass stays the same, unless you go on a diet!

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3412 Jul 28, 2013
Whew...This time thing is very tricky, and from what I've found online about the subject, it looks as though this is not something that has been decided on for sure by science or physicists or anyone lol. I can tell you what makes the most sense to me, but I'm a no one to the math on it.

I've had this discussion with my boyfriend before though, and this is what I told him... I think that the big bang was the beginning of this universe...I think that there are multiple universes out there though, and that those universes were most likely caused by the same type of "big bang" that created earth. We have no evidence only because we have only just now gotten to the "end" of our universe. It all seems very complicated, and unnecessary to me, other than for the gain of the knowledge. I don't base my life on the creation of the universe though. I think it would be awesome to know all of the answers with certainty, but as for the purpose of my life, it really has no effect.

When speaking about religions and "gods" and such, I base my decision to not believe in a creator simply because there is no need for one. I also believe that it's going to take us so long to find the answers that if we finally do, it is definitely not going to have any effect on our lives right now. I can see debating it, but not arguing over it. I can say that the research still needs to continue because it would just be awesome to see if we can figure it out, but it just doesn't seem important to me for any purpose other than having the knowledge.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3413 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a common misunderstanding, but it is wrong. There is certainly gravity is space. For example, the moon is held in orbit by the earth's gravity. A satellite is also. When an astronaut is in orbit, the earth's gravity is what keeps her in orbit. The earth is kept in orbit by the gravity from the sun. The reason things in orbit have no weight is that there is no *resistance* to gravity. You see, weight is the force we need to use to resist the force of gravity to keep something in place. Typically, this counter-force is provided by the ground, or something holding, or whatever. Even when falling, there is air resistance that opposes gravity to some extent, so there is weight (although initially the weight is very small).
You are right :)

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#3414 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right :)
The range is infinite but by inverse square, the pull from Andromeda
isn't effecting Tzar tzars comb over yet.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3415 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Not all life is plant or animal.
So is plant and animal life from another type of life form? If so please specify what kind and how it (life) crossed the barriers to create all life.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3416 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, weight is the force of *opposition* to gravity. If you have no opposition to gravity, you have no weight. For example, if you were to fall without the presence of air, you would be weightless during the fall.
Space has dust and other items in it that would be opposition to falling. It would be a small opposition but it is there. Your body has its own gravity. You cannot go no where with out the influence of gravity.

Weight is not opposition to gravity but rather the strength of the gravity on an object.

There is no such thing as mass with out weight. Gravity is everywhere.

Gravity is very weak, and the weight might be very small too small to feel but it's there.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3417 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Which only shows you don't understand what it means to be weightless.
Which means you don't consider small numbers. Gravity is everywhere.
Nothing with mass is weightless.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3418 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The range is infinite but by inverse square, the pull from Andromeda
isn't effecting Tzar tzars comb over yet.
lol :D

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3419 Jul 28, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>You have to learn to be more precise. Speed and gravity slow time down only relatively speaking. For example, if you move past me at half the speed of light, I will see your clocks as moving slower. But, you will also see *my* clocks as moving slower. It is a symmetrical situation: you see me moving past you and I see you moving past me. Both sees the clocks moving past as marking time slower.

A similar thing happens with gravity. In essence, gravity is the same as acceleration, which is a change in speed. That change produces a relative slowing of time for *both* observers.
Yes I know I just didn't feel like rewriting a book on gravity.

Speed slows time down for the speeder the observer senses time at there normal rate. Someone traveling faster then the speed of light will feel only ten minutes pass while the observer will see something like weeks go by. Both the faster then light speed traveler and the stationary person experience time the same but because of the speed of the traveler only ten minutes passed while the other stationary person had weeks go by. Both times are real and any time piece would measure the time at both places the same 10 minutes for the speed traveler and weeks for the stationary person. This has been tested and proven.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3420 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
<quoted text>Objects in a state of free fall or orbit are said to be weightless. The object's mass is the same, but it would register "0" on a scale. Weight varies depending on whether you are on Earth, the moon or in orbit. But your mass stays the same, unless you go on a diet!
Yes they are said to be weightless. The weight is too small to feel. There is no escaping gravity. Weight is the strength of gravity on an object so everything always has some weight even it is very small. Gravity is everywhere.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3421 Jul 28, 2013
I_see_you wrote:
Whew...This time thing is very tricky, and from what I've found online about the subject, it looks as though this is not something that has been decided on for sure by science or physicists or anyone lol. I can tell you what makes the most sense to me, but I'm a no one to the math on it.

I've had this discussion with my boyfriend before though, and this is what I told him... I think that the big bang was the beginning of this universe...I think that there are multiple universes out there though, and that those universes were most likely caused by the same type of "big bang" that created earth. We have no evidence only because we have only just now gotten to the "end" of our universe. It all seems very complicated, and unnecessary to me, other than for the gain of the knowledge. I don't base my life on the creation of the universe though. I think it would be awesome to know all of the answers with certainty, but as for the purpose of my life, it really has no effect.

When speaking about religions and "gods" and such, I base my decision to not believe in a creator simply because there is no need for one. I also believe that it's going to take us so long to find the answers that if we finally do, it is definitely not going to have any effect on our lives right now. I can see debating it, but not arguing over it. I can say that the research still needs to continue because it would just be awesome to see if we can figure it out, but it just doesn't seem important to me for any purpose other than having the knowledge.
There is only one universe, the word UNIVERSE means ALL space, time, matter, energy. Your reference to multi verses they would still be part of the universe. But I do understand what you mean.

Time cannot pop into existence with out time, unless it was created. Thus the need for a creator.

Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3422 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>The range is infinite but by inverse square, the pull from Andromeda
isn't effecting Tzar tzars comb over yet.
I'd but shot dead if I ever tried a comb over. LOL

The hair is thinner now a days but its still considered a full head of hair.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3423 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one universe, the word UNIVERSE means ALL space, time, matter, energy. Your reference to multi verses they would still be part of the universe. But I do understand what you mean.
Time cannot pop into existence with out time, unless it was created. Thus the need for a creator.
Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.
I see what you're trying to say I think, but I still can't say that I agree with the creator theory. I just see no reason for a creator to have to be..... I've also said before that I could never believe in a creator who would create humans as a play toy. I also think that the idea of an omnipotent being causing this much confusion among his/her creations just doesn't fit the definition of omnipotent. There are many reasons why it doesn't make sense to me.

“e pluribus unum”

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#3425 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is only one universe, the word UNIVERSE means ALL space, time, matter, energy. Your reference to multi verses they would still be part of the universe. But I do understand what you mean.
Time cannot pop into existence with out time, unless it was created. Thus the need for a creator.
Time is the paradox of the Big Bang.

You can't possibly answer that question, another point you have only limited yourself from understanding.
Weightlessness can be achieved by balance.
If you weight is .00000000007 mg it really isn't measurable, so fo all intents and purpose you are weightless.

We couldn't determine if alternate time lines or other inflating or expanding universes are beyond the constraints of this one.
There possibly could be others entirely disconnected from this one.
This universe could have also risen from a previous one, there is just no way of telling, though we try to answer these questions.
Penrose thinks he found echos of a previous universe.
Which could explain why we appear to have a false ground state in this one and why gravity is hard to explain.

Still other cosmologists imagine universes colliding and causing a transfer between them. The answers are not all there, and you surely cannot say there is only a singular universe, or multiverse of one, or even a few disconnected universe with different space/time continuums, right up to infinite universes. We just don't know.

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#3426 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't possibly answer that question, another point you have only limited yourself from understanding.
Weightlessness can be achieved by balance.
If you weight is .00000000007 mg it really isn't measurable, so fo all intents and purpose you are weightless.
We couldn't determine if alternate time lines or other inflating or expanding universes are beyond the constraints of this one.
There possibly could be others entirely disconnected from this one.
This universe could have also risen from a previous one, there is just no way of telling, though we try to answer these questions.
Penrose thinks he found echos of a previous universe.
Which could explain why we appear to have a false ground state in this one and why gravity is hard to explain.
Still other cosmologists imagine universes colliding and causing a transfer between them. The answers are not all there, and you surely cannot say there is only a singular universe, or multiverse of one, or even a few disconnected universe with different space/time continuums, right up to infinite universes. We just don't know.
I have to agree...there is no way to answer that with a definite answer. I told my boyfriend that when I think about it and see it in my head, I see this universe, and all of our planets and galaxies, and then I think to myself how far apart these places are spaced out... I can't help but think that we have now traveled farther than we ever have before...if we can figure out how to keep traveling away from our planet, there has to be other planets out there...other galaxies...other universes. I don't see why that is not entirely possible :D I wish that I could be around to see what happens...It's already so amazing how far we've come.
Thinking

Royston, UK

#3427 Jul 29, 2013
Almighty Twart: my god is very weak too small to feel but it's there
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Space has dust and other items in it that would be opposition to falling. It would be a small opposition but it is there. Your body has its own gravity. You cannot go no where with out the influence of gravity.
Weight is not opposition to gravity but rather the strength of the gravity on an object.
There is no such thing as mass with out weight. Gravity is everywhere.
Gravity is very weak, and the weight might be very small too small to feel but it's there.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#3428 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
So is plant and animal life from another type of life form? If so please specify what kind and how it (life) crossed the barriers to create all life.
Well, the protists are single celled life that are neither animals nor plants. When they developed a symbiosis with the ancestors of chloroplasts, they became primitive plants. When others started congregating, they became primitive animals.

Protists themselves were already much more complex than bacteria. In particular, protists have separate nuclei, mitochondria, and other internal organelles, unlike bacteria.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 min ChristineM 24,871
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Into The Night 52,117
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 24 min Dogen 475
News Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 53 min ChristineM 11,440
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 1 hr Richardfs 22,158
A Proof That God Exists (Mar '13) 2 hr hpcaban 1,936
News Fox Friends Outraged Over Atheists 'Making Chri... 4 hr Eagle 12 215
More from around the web