Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Highwind Dragoon on January 07, 2011, 02:24:52 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/sc_nm/us_pope_bigbang (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110106/sc_nm/us_pope_bigbang)
*sigh*
-
Well, I'm not sure what you believe (I'm not Catholic either, for the record) but it's not the most offensive thing I've ever heard a Pope say. :o
-
Actually, I was baptized and went through conformation.
-
Well, myself, personally, I believe there is some form of "higher consciousness" that we will experience when we die. A universal consciousness perhaps.
God is energy, and according to science energy cannot be created or destroyed. Atleast that's how I see it.
-
For me, the Big Bang never happened. It is only in our "finite" minds that everything must have a beginning and an end because it's the simplest way to think about things. For me, the universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end. It was always here, ever growing, ever changing, ever evolving, forever. A lot of ancient religons tell that the universe is the body of god and since god is eternal, then it is logical to think the same concept applies to the universe as well. It quite a comforting thing to think about rather then waiting to see the "Big Crunch" or end of time creep up on you.
-X
-
Ah, okay. Sorry about that HD, didn't know ^^;
-
............................ If the big bang did happen, then I believe God was behind it. Regardless of what this pope says. Always been my belief anyway. And I'm catholic.
-
Actually, I was baptized and went through conformation.
Either I see what you did there, or that's a hell of a Freudian Slip. :P
(It's supposed to be 'Confirmation')
-
Wow. Those have been my general thoughts on the universe for quite a while, and I'm not even Catholic! Interesting that the Catholic Church now officially endorses them. :o
Maybe I'm more of a traditional Christian that I thought...
-
Either I see what you did there, or that's a hell of a Freudian Slip. :P
(It's supposed to be 'Confirmation')
Oops, It was more of a misspelling if anything.
My bad. :( :( :(
For me, the Big Bang never happened. It is only in our "finite" minds that everything must have a beginning and an end because it's the simplest way to think about things. For me, the universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end. It was always here, ever growing, ever changing, ever evolving, forever. A lot of ancient religons tell that the universe is the body of god and since god is eternal, then it is logical to think the same concept applies to the universe as well. It quite a comforting thing to think about rather then waiting to see the "Big Crunch" or end of time creep up on you.
-X
“Is man one of God's blunders? Or is God one of man's blunders?” Friedrich Nietzsche
I do believe in god, but I don't believe that he is as powerful as people make "him" out to be. (not saying that "he" is weak, just that he is near omnipotent, as opposed to omnipotent, which doesn't seem like much, but there is a difference.)
Also, why does man get the favorable treatment? There could be life on other plants in the milky way galaxy and through the rest of the universe.
-
It's interesting to seek theological sources for the religious theories or myths about the creation of the world (or universe).
When I studied Bible at school we studied it from a secular-historical point of view, and so my teacher taught the stories of Genesis from a pragmatic point of view.
The Jewish story of world creation, described in the Book of Genesis, which later was borrowed by Christianity and Islam and accepted by them, was very revolutionary in the time it was written, because it had aspects not present in any other religion at the time:
1. The existence of only one, abstract God (or divine being).
2. The elevation of the one God above anything in the world. Nature and great animals have been created by God, and so, forces of nature & great animals shall not be referred to as gods.
This apparently had great importance in the Jewish religion, as the book claims:
001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.
Some ancient religions believed that whales and gators are Gods (or divine beings), and so the Bible mentions that God created them, therefore they are nothing more than animals.
3. God created humans in His image. "In his image" means, not physically, as God has no form, but mentally- he gave him the ability to think. Humans were given dominion over the land, and so they are free, and not slaves of a god.
It's easy to understand how revolutionary this theory was when compared to Enuma Elis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Eli%C5%A1), the Babylonian myth of world creation. The Babylonian believed that the world was created as a result of a war between gods, and the earth and skies were created by the god Marduk from the corpse of Tiamat, a god that he has killed. Later he uses the blood of her husband to create humans, and makes them his servants.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.detoxorcist.com%2Fimages%2Ftiamat.jpg&hash=42d9b58ab01b7f5826f9bcb2205110d12bbf7f66)
-
Reminds me of Doug TenNapel's (Earthworm Jim creator) blog post, "Four Revolutionary Words (http://tennapel.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/four-revolutionary-words/)".
"Finally, I read my kids those first four words of Genesis, 'In the beginning, God...' and I stop. Within four words the Bible has already pissed off most of my employers, most of the philosophers I read, many in the arts community and many of my neighbors here in Los Angeles (come on, you live a city named after angels). There's little more offensive than to claim that God existed in history, is really there and that this can be known."
Moses' Genesis creation account was definitely revolutionary.
"Conformation," tee-hee. :)
-
As long as he's not telling people to do the old in-out without a rubber or protecting pedos (both of which he does but let's just pretend, shall we?), does it honestly matter?
-
*sigh*
I'm not sure I understand what would be so far fetched about God having been behind the Big Bang.
It literally is the best theoretical example of "let there be light".
-
I'm not sure I understand what would be so far fetched about God having been behind the Big Bang.
It literally is the best theoretical example of "let there be light".
Wow, is this like the first time I agree with you? >.>
Anywho, regarding Man getting favorable treatment.... you never know. Maybe the universe was created and everything was set in motion, and God watches the outcome, and Man just happens to come on top, making them the ones God interact with..... at least at the level we perceive. Or, it could be that Man isn't getting the more favorable treatment... it's not like we know it for sure.
-
Hmm..
Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 000 000 years straight. Man has been around for, what, 300 000 years tops? What makes us think that we're so friggin important and that a God has chosen us to "rule" this planet? I very much doubt that humans will be around for millions of years to come. We'll be completely overshadowed by the dinosaurs in terms of significance to the history of earth. I just don't think we're important in the greater scheme of things. We're an insignificant, very temporary race that will either destroy this planet during our lifetime or be surpassed by other creatures in the future. So no, I don't believe in God. I hope I'm wrong though. It would be cool if there was some purpose to it all...
EDIT:
I hope no one found this post offensive or something.. It wasn't my intention anyway, but maybe it came out a bit blunt... well well, each to their own :)
-
What if there are other species of humans in the universe...?
lets not even open that can of worms, lol. The rabbit hole goes soo deep, shelv ~_~
-
What if there are other species of humans in the universe...?
lets not even open that can of worms, lol. The rabbit hole goes soo deep, shelv ~_~
:D
*puts lid back on can*
It's an interesting topic though, and the universe in particular interests me greatly. When I was little I wanted to become an astronomer, but life had other plans for me :)
-
We'll be completely overshadowed by the dinosaurs in terms of significance to the history of earth.
Yes, I mean look at the achievements of the dinosaurs compared to our art, mathematics, poetry, science...
Erm, some of their shit fossilised.
Yeah.
Duration and significance aren't the same thing. That's why Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour isn't a more significant movie than Citizen Kane.
-
Yes, I mean look at the achievements of the dinosaurs compared to our art, mathematics, poetry, science...
Erm, some of their shit fossilised.
Yeah.
Duration and significance aren't the same thing. That's why Michael Bay's Pearl Harbour isn't a more significant movie than Citizen Kane.
I may have used the word "significance" wrong here. English is not my first language, but I try :D
Those are achievements to us, yes. Things that we, humans, understand in our minuscule corner of the universe. Of course you think it's the greatest thing that ever happened. You are, after all human and probably think that you're the most important thing there ever was. There is however no proof that they mean anything at all, in the greater scheme of things. No more than fossilised dinosaur poop.
I think duration is more important when looking at the history of the universe. In the highly unlikely event of someone from the future would summarize life on planet earth in one sentence, it would probably be less "That planet where humans lived" and more "That planet which was dead most of the time, but had dinosaurs on it at one point". Unless, of course we go on living for billions of years. So yeah, duration matters more in my opinion.
-
Yes, but on the other hand, what did the dinosaurs do? They walked around, ate a lot, and died. This largely does not distinguish them from any form of life that preceded or superceded them. We're the only ones who have this whole technology and intelligence business going on, which makes us unique from all those who have come before us. So if you were summing up in one sentence, you'd stay it was that place where stuff lived, and one particular kind of stuff that lived was remarkably smarter and more resourceful than all the other stuff put together.
Or you'd say "that planet with the nematode worms" since they kind of beat everything else in existence when it comes to being successful.
-
What if there are other species of intelligent lifeforms in the universe...?
Lets not even open that can of worms, lol. The rabbit hole goes soo deep, shelv ~_~
Why not, man?
I would really like to believe there are. I mean, if you believe that life on this planet was formed by sheer coincidence, doesn't it makes sense that in our (nearly) infinite universe, there is a galaxy very similar to the solar system, where there's a planet just like Earth, and by total coincidence, life has been formed there as well?
If a person believes in aliens, is that a reason to ridicule him? I don't think so. In fact, the existence of other intelligent life forms, maybe not here but in a faraway galaxy, sounds very logical to me.
-
In the timeline of an universe (or, even more appropriately, a Multiverse), we're just as miniscule as the dinosaurs, and everything that we create will erode over time. A passersby 100,000,000 years from now may visit and, in the best outcome, may find us or descendants of us, but it is likely they will not find anything at all, 'cept maybe some ruins... and even those will have eroded and have been destroyed by then.
There's a TV program "Life After People" (http://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people), which postulates that, if humans were to disappear from Earth for whatever reason (a hypothetical scenario, for the sake of simplicity, is that we just vanished for no reason) shows that it would take barely 500 years or so for nature to completely overshadow, erode, corrode, and destroy any semblance of our oh-so-mighty civilization. Even the satellites we have orbiting our planet would become nothing more than shooting stars, exploding and disintegrating as they plummet into our atmosphere.
So no, we're really not significant. Our human egotistical brain forces us to think we're hot shit (and, comparatively, right now we are, since there's no opposing might to our intellect and behavior anywhere we've looked), but our legacy is looking bleaker and bleaker as we continue to live in this planet and destroying it as a result. It will get the last laugh, eventually.
I'm in the camp that believes that in such a huge ocean of an universe, our solar system is but one tiny molecule in it. The chances of there being other life forms, with higher intelligence and more accomplishments done in their racial lifetime is likely to be far greater... but they would be too distant from us for us to have ever known them. Without the ability to travel great distances in a short time (which would require the bending of the laws of physics, a theme bordering more on science fiction than science fact, but not implausable or impossible given what little we know), it is unlikely that we will ever meet them. It is also unlikely that they would care to meet us. After all, they have their own problems.
I would imagine that if such races exist, their concern on an Universal Scale is the same as ours: When the planet is on its last legs, what will they be able to do, to survive? The sun's power is not infinite, plus any incoming big Solar Flare can potentially destroy us by the time we're even able to see it coming. An asteroid may show up any minute now, and we currently do not have the abilities to move it out of its trajectory. Those are the biggest threats to Human Existence right now. We've just been in a optimal position and have the laws of probability on our side, and have been quite fortunate.
It is possible that we're all just dust specs inside a collector's jar, too.
God? He may very well exist, and we're one of his pet project. We could be code in someone's computer program, a set of binomes in a giant mainframe (ha ha! Reboot). We could, however, be very small.
It's a big big universe, and we're all really puny,
we're just tiny little specks about the size of Mickey Rooney.
Then again maybe this 'deity' is just a scientist with 8 eyes who's made us in a giant pitri dish and is watching to see when we end up killing ourselves. All of these are perfectly plausable theories. We just don't know. And I really think we should stop kidding ourselves and thinking we're so high and mighty. Cockroaches and Rats may outlive us... and they can survive even cosmic collisions (well, maybe not the rats).
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fatthegarage.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F04%2Fexistentialism.gif&hash=43fdcd69cdd2ac5034166339367c350287155dc7)
Ha ha! Existentialism.
-
Or, at the other end of the scale, everything could just be a figment of my imagination, in which case the dinosaurs are completely unimportant because I'm the only thing that exists anyway.
Also, IIRC that series said the faces on Mount Rushmore would last thousands of years barring a major geological event, and the same for NORAD and several other things.
-
Well... I believe we have been visited, and I only said lets not open this worm can becuz it really deserves it's own topic/thread altogether. If the public really knew what was going on on this planet, then I doubt we'd be arguing petty stuff like vampires & castles lol
Here's some food for thought
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJoAMlP0G28
-
i believe in stargate
-
I believe in Crystal Light, because I believe in me.
Oops, wait...
In a way, I'm surprised and not surprised about the pope's announcement. It seems like another logical step towards the Catholic church's adjustment of its beliefs to the modern world. In high school, I was taught how the creation story of Adam & Eve was really just a story meant to simplify the origin of man, and nothing else. I was kind of shocked to learn that the story of creation wasn't taken literally by the church anymore (yeah, I know).
But I'm still kind of surprised how a viewpoint like that could progress to (at least) the pope publicly believing in a divine Big Bang Theory in such a relatively short amount of time. I dunno, seems kind of weird to me.
-
It's taken literally by a few weird religions, usually of the Protestant Type.
I love the way Robin Williams put it (Roll it, skip to 2:30 minutes):
Robin Williams on Religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epBylC1_pCg#)
-
But I'm still kind of surprised how a viewpoint like that could progress to (at least) the pope publicly believing in a divine Big Bang Theory in such a relatively short amount of time. I dunno, seems kind of weird to me.
According to Wikipedia,
Pope Pius XII, declared at the November 22, 1951 opening meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that the Big Bang theory accorded with the Catholic concept of creation
So, hey, even shorter!
-
So then Benedict announcing this was pretty pointless, huh?
-
If you guys want something that's really though-provoking then check this guy out:
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/2946/Nassim_Haramein_s_Unified_Field_Theory___Part_1/ (http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/2946/Nassim_Haramein_s_Unified_Field_Theory___Part_1/)
He goes into detail about life, the universe, religion, etc. It's a two part video and each is about 4 hours long so if you wanna watch it, get comfortable. But I highly recommend it even though the occasional point conflicts with my personal views.
-X
-
Got a summary of what's talked about? I dont' like watching things too much, I tend to start skipping.
-
Well check out the link and it should also have small clips of different segments of the main video. It's all there and I would have to see it again to give you a breaf summery.
-X
-
Got a summary of what's talked about? I dont' like watching things too much, I tend to start skipping.
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html (http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html)
Read and skip the whole video.
-
I wouldn't skip the video if I were you. This article you've directed me to sounds as though the official scientific communtity is trying to make him look like a fraud. In the vedio he does say that because of his theories, he was quickly dismissed from his lecture. Dismissed because he was challanging the current status quo of scientific thinking. So before you judge the man, give the video a chance and you might be surprised. like I said, you might not agree with all he says, but he makes a damned good argument and challanges our current way of thinking.
-X
-
For me, the Big Bang never happened. It is only in our "finite" minds that everything must have a beginning and an end because it's the simplest way to think about things. For me, the universe never had a beginning and it will never have an end. It was always here, ever growing, ever changing, ever evolving, forever. A lot of ancient religons tell that the universe is the body of god and since god is eternal, then it is logical to think the same concept applies to the universe as well. It quite a comforting thing to think about rather then waiting to see the "Big Crunch" or end of time creep up on you.
-X
...And what about all the evidence for it?
Further: The Big Bang is not necessarily an "absolute beginning" of everything; it is a beginning of time and space as we know it; its validity is not contingent upon their being absolutely nothing before it.
In fact, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334027/Universe-shows-imprints-events-took-place-BEFORE-Big-Bang-say-scientists.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334027/Universe-shows-imprints-events-took-place-BEFORE-Big-Bang-say-scientists.html) these scientists believe they have evidence that might indicate there were events prior to the big bang encoded into the cosmic microwave background radiation.
I should note, I stopped reading the thread after the end of the first page and then made this response. It is late and I am heading to bed soon, so I won't get to it until later. If anything I've said here has since been answered or discussed, then I'll deal with it tomorrow.
-
This article you've directed me to sounds as though the official scientific communtity is trying to make him look like a fraud. In the vedio he does say that because of his theories, he was quickly dismissed from his lecture. Dismissed because he was challanging the current status quo of scientific thinking.
And you don't think there's something odd about claiming that everyone disagreeing with him is proof that he's right? You could make the same argument about the idea that the earth is flat or evolution isn't real: everyone in the scientific community disagrees with those, too. Or that you should drive the wrong way down a highway at a hundred miles an hour, all those motorists beeping their horns and cops trying to arrest you are just trying to cover up the truth that the lanes are the wrong way around.
Now, here we have a guy who thinks a proton weighs almost a billion tons, an idea so entirely stupid it defies belief. His ideas about the binding energy of protons mean he believes the energy required to seperate two would be about half that required to knock the moon out of orbit. It's hardly surprising the scientific community doesn't take his theories seriously; they're bad science.
-
In fact, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334027/Universe-shows-imprints-events-took-place-BEFORE-Big-Bang-say-scientists.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334027/Universe-shows-imprints-events-took-place-BEFORE-Big-Bang-say-scientists.html) these scientists believe they have evidence that might indicate there were events prior to the big bang encoded into the cosmic microwave background radiation.
Not at all surprising... as the Big Bang is supposed to happen when particles strike each other right? So if there weren't anything before it, it couldn't happen.
Of course, I could've remembered wrong, feel free to correct.
-
And you don't think there's something odd about claiming that everyone disagreeing with him is proof that he's right? You could make the same argument about the idea that the earth is flat or evolution isn't real: everyone in the scientific community disagrees with those, too. Or that you should drive the wrong way down a highway at a hundred miles an hour, all those motorists beeping their horns and cops trying to arrest you are just trying to cover up the truth that the lanes are the wrong way around.
What I was getting at more 'n less was that if you; one man, challanged the whole scientific community about a claim that you felt was genuine, you too would be met with harsh criticism, hate and fear because you were challanging their long-istablished dogma. It's no different then the Pharmaceutical companies telling you that only their products can and will help you get better and to avoid natural pathic or holistic healing. If you missinterpited my last message then I do apologizes, but you need to have an open mind too. Don't stop at one thing and leave the rest behind. Go digging and don't stop. If it pisses people off that you're doing something that defies everything else then so be it. It means that you're doing what you beileve to be true.
-X
-
Dogma? Opinion instantly discounted.
-
That's up to Jorge, Joachim. but if all you guys want to nail me to a cross befitting a Drumhead trial? Then by all means.
-X
-
...It's up to Jorge that I'm dismissing your opinion because of your ludicrous usage of the word dogma?
-
It's no different then the Pharmaceutical companies telling you that only their products can and will help you get better and to avoid natural pathic or holistic healing.
Yes, it's like that in the sense that isn't true either. There's the little matter that very few "natural" remedies are subject to any meaningful form of regulation, make claims they have no way of backing up, and when they're actually subject to double-blind testing don't perform any better than placebo doses do.
Now, this guy thinks a proton weighs almost a billion tons. Doesn't it strike you as even slightly off that he's claiming a subatomic particle is as massive as a small mountain?
-
Now, this guy thinks a proton weighs almost a billion tons. Doesn't it strike you as even slightly off that he's claiming a subatomic particle is as massive as a small mountain?
That does sound puzzling, yes. However if that particular proton came from the core of a dence white dwarf star or pulsar, then I'd consider it. Any form of matter from such a densely packed object could weight up to billions of tons no-matter how small.
-X
-
That does sound puzzling, yes. However if that particular proton came from the core of a dence white dwarf star or pulsar, then I'd consider it. Any form of matter from such a densely packed object could weight up to billions of tons no-matter how small.
No it couldn't. That's as ridiculous as saying a half-inch pebble from a mountain could weigh a thousand tons because the mountain itself weighs billions. Neutron stars are formed out of perfectly ordinary atomic nuclei compacted to the point they contain very little empty space (which atoms normally consist almost entirely of). The mass of a proton is known (1.67 trillionths of a trillionth of a gram). This is rather less than 885 million tons.
-
that pebble analogy is a bad one... as I think it is possible for the weight to be extremely high due to an incredibly high density. As dense as it make it weigh thousands of tons, probably not, it sounds theoretically possible.
That said, a proton weighing billions of tons seems far fetch.
-
that pebble analogy is a bad one... as I think it is possible for the weight to be extremely high due to an incredibly high density. As dense as it make it weigh thousands of tons, probably not, it sounds theoretically possible.
Um, it's a very high density of atomic nuclei, the particles that make up those nuclei don't have to be dense. Imagine a mile-square field covered in a hundred bricks and a very thin layer of mortar. Now, build a sphere out of them in the middle of the field. The result is hugely more dense, but every brick still weighs the same as it did before and there isn't any more mortar.
Same with a neutron star; the matter is compacted to form it, but the elementary particles in that matter aren't any more massive than they normally are, there's just a lot more of them than would normally be in a given volume because a normal atom is composed mostly of empty space.
-
Um, it's a very high density of atomic nuclei, the particles that make up those nuclei don't have to be dense. Imagine a mile-square field covered in a hundred bricks and a very thin layer of mortar. Now, build a sphere out of them in the middle of the field. The result is hugely more dense, but every brick still weighs the same as it did before and there isn't any more mortar.
Same with a neutron star; the matter is compacted to form it, but the elementary particles in that matter aren't any more massive than they normally are, there's just a lot more of them than would normally be in a given volume because a normal atom is composed mostly of empty space.
wtf are you talking about.
-
wtf are you talking about.
What you were using is called the Fallacy of Division, where you imagine that something true of a whole is also true of any part of it. Here, that anything dense must be composed of things which are themselves dense (and you mistake density to mean they would contain more mass than they normally would rather than having the same mass but occupying less space, too), rather than a great density of things which are not themselves dense. In the example of bricks in a field, you change from having only a handful distributed around an entire field, to a compact sphere with none of the spaces between; the resulting sphere is denser, but simple measurement will tell you the bricks themselves have not changed aside from getting closer to each other than they were.
This, on a much, much greater scale, is what is happening in a neutron star; the atoms in it are compacted to the point there's virtually no space between nuclei rather than the atoms being mostly empty space as they normally are. This correspondingly hugely increases the density, but it doesn't mean the subatomic particles that form the nucleus have themselves got heavier; there are just many, many more of them in a given space than in normal matter. Even if they have got denser, this will mean the protons have become smaller than they normally would be, not that they somehow weigh more than they normally would.
This is what I meant with the example of the mountain; imagining a proton from a neutron star must be incredibly heavy because a neutron star is dense is like imagining a tiny pebble from a mountain must be incredibly heavy because the mountain is heavy. It's the same fallacy.
To give an easier example of why density doesn't make a given object heavier, when you crush a car you turn it into a small cube. That cube weighs as much as the original car. If you then stack them together you can fit multiple car-masses into the space occupied by an uncrushed car, but none of those cubes would weigh more than the cars they were originally; they're just smaller, which allows you to put more of them in a given space.
-
To simplify what Evil_Tim is saying (and I hope I can do it justice):
The word "Density" seems to be used incorrectly here. As he said, "Density" relates to the relatively close proximity between the atoms of an element or compound. However, all of the elements are still made of three parts: An electron, a proton, and a neutron... and as far as I know, they are relatively constant in size and weight, regardless of the combinations that they make.
That is to say, if you take the building blocks of Hydrogen (one Proton, one Electron, no Neutrons), and measure each one, they have the same 'weight' as the building blocks of, say, helium (two electrons in orbit around a nucleus containing two protons along with either one or two neutrons, depending on the isotope), those individual blocks are still the same weight and size (there are just more of them bound to form the system of particles that what we call 'Helium').
If I read correctly, that one scientist is claiming that every Neutron weighs a Ton... well by that train of thought, then what is he using as a unit of measurement that he arrives at "Ton"?
-
To give an easier example of why density doesn't make a given object heavier, when you crush a car you turn it into a small cube. That cube weighs as much as the original car. If you then stack them together you can fit multiple car-masses into the space occupied by an uncrushed car, but none of those cubes would weigh more than the cars they were originally; they're just smaller, which allows you to put more of them in a given space.
This is what I was going for.
Where a mineral that has a 2 inch radius can be heavier than lets say a Styrofoam car if it's density is higher.
Following your example quoted above, a car is... lets say 10 foot wide, while a crushed car is 4 foot wide. True, that the crush car does not weigh more than the uncrushed one, maybe even less because of gases that may be in the car. But the same area hold 2.5 crush cars which would make that heavier.
To put it in the example used earlier, if that half inch pebble held something heavy and had 10,000,000 of whatever that is (Lets link Futurama into it and say Dark Matter =P) it would weigh more than the mountain when it is less dense because it only holds 5,000 of that dark matter but more spread out. Get what I'm getting at?
EDIT: Should say that, I'm not any sort of scientist nor am I too particularly interested in most scientific things, just the cool stuff like lightsabers lol, but I'm going on what I think is common sense. So how right or not right it may be...... well whatever anyone wants to see it as. It's not like we have that billion ton nuclei to do tests with anyway.
-
that still wouldn't affect the weight of an individual proton.
-
Following your example quoted above, a car is... lets say 10 foot wide, while a crushed car is 4 foot wide. True, that the crush car does not weigh more than the uncrushed one, maybe even less because of gases that may be in the car. But the same area hold 2.5 crush cars which would make that heavier.
Let's explain this a little more clearly. Say a car weighs 1 ton, and we crush it to be one-tenth the size it usually is. Now we can fit ten car-cubes into the volume of the original car, so a set of cubes with the same volume as one car would weigh ten tons.
The thing is, this ten-ton object would still contain ten one-ton cars, not one ten-ton car; the volume contains more things, but the things themselves are no heavier than they originally were.
In much the same way, a given volume of neutron star matter might contain a huge number of protons, but those protons are no heavier than they would normally be.
-
Oh, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing space & density vs weight.
And on that note, I don't know if a proton can change in any of it's characteristic... even if current science seems to say so. New facts come about with more tests... but I do doubt that a single proton would be that drastically different if at all different.
-
Oh, I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing space & density vs weight.
Yeah, but like a car, a proton is a thing with given characteristics. You might have insanely dense matter that has atoms compressed to the point there's almost no space between them (one of the hardest things to visualise about subatomic physics is that apparently solid objects still consist mostly of empty space), but that still just means you have a lot more protons in a given area, not that they're heavy protons.
Regardless, Nassim Haramein doesn't think that some protons might be heavier, he's far more out to lunch than that. His thesis is that the strong nuclear force doesn't exist, and he models his "Schwarzschild proton" as a black hole (!). For a black hole to be the size of a proton, it would have to weigh 885 million tons. His ideas would also mean one proton would radiate enough energy to light 60,000 average US homes, that protons would be so unstable an orbiting pair would eat each other within a few trillionths of a trillionth of a second, that a proton would have an event horizon and thus would be impossible to look inside (we've looked inside them, so, um, yeah)...
Basically, he's the standard guru type who dresses up his platitudes with incredibly bad science.