Jump to content

jday

Members
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science
    Biology

Recent Profile Visitors

198 profile views

jday's Achievements

Quark

Quark (2/13)

1

Reputation

  1. Even so wouldn’t you say that there is potential of energy and regardless of active or inactive the fact that there is “to be”, is something rather than nothing. If the statement was zero and inevitably zero without any counter action to increase then that will conclude as nothing however if there’s a possibility of the nothing becoming something then there has always been a potential to something. @Genady
  2. Yeah “In 1668 John Wilkins, an English clergyman, proposed a coordinated system of units of measure use by philosophers.” The French originated the metric system of measurement (now called the International System of Units and abbreviated SI, pronounced “ess-eye”) it was revered to a different term.
  3. They must’ve been a confusion in the 19 century the SI units were revised and in the 16th century it was once revised again I can link and article if you’d like.
  4. Throughout the centuries the SI unit has proved to be unreliable in certain situations hence in those situations they decided to improve and change the basic unit system. We base measurements from earth’s properties but given the different and probably infinite possibilities within our universe we base our observations from earths basic units however one size does not fit all. Connecting back to my initial statement I wouldn’t say that measurement itself is an illusion but there are variable factors that change the aspect and how we interpret the information.
  5. In your previous statement you said that “nuclear energy wasn’t possible until atoms are formed allowing for the eventual production of stars” however the one thing that was present before the production of nuclear energy was atoms. If there wasn’t potential for Energy to transform into a nuclear energy there was something prior to that. My belief or theory here is that from something there’s always endless possibilities to occur same relation into energy, from something transforms into something else. I hope this makes sense but going back to the nuclear energy, nuclear energy wasn’t able to transpire with out the potential to and with that potential energy there’s many outcomes to occur.
  6. Ask yourself what happens to our atoms when we die, are they destroyed , because if atoms/ particles came from nothing isn't there a possibility of destroying atoms back into nothing? Part of Newton's laws is that energy can't be created nor destroyed so how does that support the Big Bang theory? How was energy created if their were particles/ atoms that have poteinal energy to create a charge @Bufofrog
  7. I understand that but would you design a space probes the same are now if you were on a planet with a denser gravitational pull? Our weight is also different on different planets.
  8. I agree with you because "energy can't be created nor destroyed. I personally feel that the universe has so much more to tell and I personally believe that the Big Bang isn't the full story. Onto that you were stating atoms in my option have always been here.
  9. I wouldn't say that measurement itself is an illusion. Due to Earth's gravitational pull, it directly effects the expansion of objects. It was recorded on March 2016, an astronomer Scott Kelly, grew 3 inches in space due to the lack of a gravitational pull. I would rather phrase that measurements is dependent on our external conditions, for example we have a basic unit system so that despite or own perspective we human can globally interpret our external conditions. Therefore, if our conditions changed like a different planet than we would have to change our basic measurement system.
  10. I understand your reason to think so but where does it say that it is impossible for that to happen yes we are limited to the amount of knowledge and understanding but it hasn't been proven to be impossible There is a distinct difference between evidence that could be proven by facts rather than that of a n thought will not way to make it possible. You are stating a god throwing lightings bolts but the whole understand if or if not god is still debatable. Lets put it into context I can can imagine cats flying (an example) but I would have to do background research of how it can be possible. Put simply imagining whatever you want to be possible could be likened to theory you will need evidence to support you claim. But tell me how would you to research to understand the reason of you imagination. It's not stupid what could be stupid is not finding ways that support the claim of their being a chance of a possibility even if the chances are slim.
  11. I personally believe that we are on the verge of having a complete new world viewpoint of our everyday life. If you think about our conscience and our physical mind verses our conscience they are somewhat different. Our brains are made up of matter yet the matter that composes our brain include chemicals that wire out emotions and send electrical responses that form our conscience. our minds make known we are alive and aware of our surrounding but if we actually take the time to understand the concept our mind then we can not only understand our bodies but the world around us.
  12. I personally believe that anything imagined is possible. If you think about it we generalize information based on how our minds perceive the situation and classify it in a common group. For example language it is a human way of communicating but there isn't a wrong way of speaking we just view anything out of the ordinary as unusual and doesn't fit in out category of information understood.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.