EquisDeXD

Which I did to the best of my ability. You don't have to disprove anything really, you don't even have to post, in fact, no one really "has" to to anything at all, literally. Which is wrong, Which I did at one point, which is why I think it's possible. And this is why I said to drop it, because this isn't going to go anywhere. Don't get me wrong, I'm not "assuming" that it was an atomic blast, but I'm not assuming it was any other particular thing either, and I just don't see enough evidence to suggest it's impossible..

Do do memes have to do with that song?

Or you can just be open minded about the flaws in your beliefs.

There are undiscovered elements, there's actually theoretically an indefinite number (though for some reason it stops around ununoctium), but these elements are so radioactive and unstable they only exist for a fraction of a second.

I'm not sure what your saying, I said that it wasn't confirmed what the source of the radioactivity was either way, but it was also stated that it's common for bones to become radioactive through absorbing uranium, yet your asking for evidence of radioactive skeletons? Yeah, cooling was the wrong term, moderating was the one used in the link. Can you be more specific? I was the only one who mentioned the fireball theory, and a normal meteor would either leave a crater, or it would explode above the ground too high or completely disintegrate in the atmosphere and/or not so perfectly disperse heat. In naturally occurring nuclear reactors or even in just random pockets, there exists a larger concentration of the 235 isotope, which is the principal isotope in triggering large nuclear reactions in nuclear devices. Given that, it seems very irrational to say that a natural nuclear reactor couldn't in any way shape or form have something to do with a natural nuclear explosion. I think we should just stick with the other topic, I don't think anyone has the evidence necessary to convince me that it was impossible for a nuclear explosion to happen naturally, and it appears I don't have the evidence necessary to convince you and a few others that there is a relatively fair likelihood.

Hmm, that seems highly contradictory to what I remember, do you have any links? Quarks move like photons? I've never heard of anything like that, if matter gets compressed beyond the point of degeneracy, then a singularity has to either be a lot larger which you can't prove and doesn't seem to follow conventional particle physics since quarks only have a finite relative size for how small they can get, or there's no quarks.

Your really not saying anything more than "Something that exists in a field acts accordingly". The virtual photons don't propagate within the field that's already existing, they in a way already exist at the place in a field where they interact within a field which is where time symmetry arises from, which I think in relativistic terms can be described as a static electro-magnetic field or a time frame independent field. When there's a specific "change", that change happens at the speed of light, but when it's just a field just sitting there, it's existence of the interaction, a field doesn't propagate to where it already exists. I could be mis-interpreting you, but I hope I'm understanding the question well enough.

Ok, there's two very bad problems with this statement. One is that you said yourself that different cultures have different morals, therefore we should expect different consequences, and second morals aren't some mystical force, they have no existence whatsoever without our awareness of them, literally, if someone doesn't think killing is wrong, then that moral for them doesn't exist, and the moral for fearing death mostly isn't a moral at all, it's a chemical process anyway. Morals are essentially just statements on what should and should not happen. If people aren't aware of those statements, then those morals don't exist in those people. That's a tricky question. In a way you can have logic in morality to work out situations, but you must have axioms, and axioms are essentially just assumptions. No it's not consequences exactly, it's whether anything actually considers something has harm or benefit. In most cases, a lot of animals don't really like getting harmed, and plants, even though it isn't proven that they consciously do or don't have perception of some sort, still have responses to being harmed and generally grow in a manner as to try and extend their existence.

You "can't" accept it? So you in denial about it's possibility? Your answers are illogical, and as I said, something didn't "come from" nothing, something created itself because all things that exist have non-zero probability of existing. Evidence and proof means little to you? Who do you think you are? You think your better than the whole of humanity's science? You think you know more than all the scientists in the world? You don't even have anything that could constitute as evidence, and now I know why. "Why is the universe here? You had already answered it when you asked it. You have demonstrated a desire to bait others," No, I demonstrate a desire to see if my theory can withstand scientific or logical analysis through peer review, which you obviously aren't helping with. " I can't offer proofs because that would be considered hijacking, of which I have no desire. " No it would be considered not blowing smoke up someone's a** if you have at least evidence or justification for your beliefs. ""In the beginning." That statement, the idea of it, is likely the foundation of which you've built you ideas about the universe, maybe about God as well. " I'm an atheist, but it doesn't mean that everything a religion has to offer is automatically false just because the statements happen to be asserted within a religion. Sure, there was a beginning. Did god have anything to do with it? I Doubt it. "Where is that "Scientific Evidence?" Probabilty of what? " For one, there's virtual particles which are particles that seemingly pop into and out of existence which the mechanics of has been tested with the predicted Casmir Effect, and two, there's the statistical analysis of matter in which events are not actually causally connected because every result of matter's every measured location is a random outcome. Matter inherently is improbable, and there's a few scientists who also argue "nothing is unstable", the first of which who comes to mind is Frank Wilczek.

You "can't" accept it? So you in denial about it's possibility? Your answers are illogical, and as I said, something didn't "come from" nothing, something created itself. Evidence and proof means little to you? Who do you think you are? You think your better than the whole of humanity's science? You think you know more than all the scientists in the world? You don't even have anything that could constitute as evidence, and now I know why. "Why is the universe here? You had already answered it when you asked it. You have demonstrated a desire to bait others," No, I demonstrate a desire to see if my theory can withstand scientific or logical analysis through peer review, which you obviously aren't helping with. " I can't offer proofs because that would be considered hijacking, of which I have no desire. " No it would be considered not blowing smoke up someone's a** if you have at least evidence or justification for your beliefs. ""In the beginning." That statement, the idea of it, is likely the foundation of which you've built you ideas about the universe, maybe about God as well. " I'm almost the opposite of religions, but it doesn't mean that everything a religion has to offer is automatically false just because the statements happen to be asserted within a religion. Sure, there was a beginning. Did god have anything to do with it? I Doubt it. "Where is that "Scientific Evidence?"<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); ">Probabilty of what? " For one, there's virtual particles which are particles that seemingly pop into and out of existence which the mechanics of has been tested with the predicted Casmir Effect, and two, there's the statistical analysis of matter in which events are not actually causally connected because every result of matter's every measured location is a random outcome. Matter inherently is improbable, and there's a few scientists who also argue "nothing is unstable", the first of which who comes to mind is Frank Wilczek.

But as others pointed out, radioactivity can occur from radioactive materials seeping into bones and dinosaur bones, and dinosaur bones have been in the soil for longer than a few thousand years unlike those skeletons, and there isn't enough information to determine that that was the cause for the radioactivity, because nuclear reactions break apart uranium in different smaller nuclei as well as into neutrons, but of course the explosion doesn't only effect uranium, the particle bombardment can irradiate other materials as well which get vaporized and pushed by the shockwave or travel into the air. I suppose if it could be proven that most of the radioactivity was in fact natural uranium as well as a more logical explanation for the field of glass, it would be enough for be to drop it. No, I provided at least detailed link that was credible, didn't mention any conspiracy about anything, but showed natural nuclear reactors can form, and that they can potentially overheat if there isn't enough water filtering through. Because fields of glass can be caused by the heat of a meteor impact, but there's no crater at the sites, and if it was eroded away, the field of glass would also have had to of been eroded away because it's in the same area as the crater. Well, it doesn't have to be the largest or most powerful atomic explosion, but nuclear reactions can at least occur in stars and theoretically occur in naturally occurring reactors, though it hasn't been observed. There's a link I posted somewhere in here and on my other thread someone posted a link. For one, there's no debate on if they actually happened, its about what can cause them. But you can come pretty close. I'm asking the members if they have evidence on the other thread, not the other way around. I posted a few links and cited the program which as documented footage of the area. I don't remember specifically if it had any more evidence. The two hypothesized mechanisms are imporbable, though possible. It is improbable for there to be a naturally high occurance of uranium 235, which doesn't mean it's impossible. Well, we don't have enough information to determine what the mass would have been, though for a meteor (however improbable it may be that it had the critical amount of 235) has to be pretty heavy to survive the whole trip through Earth's atmosphere. I don't know how you can determine that about the nuclear reactions, but Earth quakes? Volcanic Eruptions? They aren't necessarily the fastest things, but they are definitely faster than the average amount of transformation of crust, most crust only transforms form its original position by a few inches. Perhaps they did, fused into the glass left over. There's the reason that many people in the area died, there's ancient documents from people who lived in the area who painted a depiction of a large explosion in the same area with survivors getting sick, many many dead bodies, and no impact crater. Because so far every intuitive theory lacks enough evidence or had been overturned, and of course the intuitive answer isn't always the right one, and that's not what the history channel said that's just what I found while I was researching non conspiracy links, so far the only other leading theory is somehow the meteor exploded just before hitting the ground, heating up the surrounding air enough to melt glass. Further analysis still has to be done on whether a meteor can explode in such a way to heat up such a large surface of air as well as a being large enough to make it through all the atmosphere and still have enough mass to create such an explosion while somehow all that leftover mass that was able to create a large field of glass also completely vaporized leaving no crater or apparent meteor debris. This field of glass thing isn't an easily solved phenomena which is probably why there's so many conspiracy sites surrounding it.

Um, why WOULDNT someone want to know? There's no scientific confirmation, but there's scientific evidence. Nope because that would mean humans have always existed which means they were alive before they were alive or even before the condisitons for life on this planet were met, which makes no logical sense whatsoever. There's not really anyway to test multiple universes right now, and all those universes or the multi-verse could still have all had the same start. Well, there's scientific evidence that probability is independent from physical existence, and nothing can count to infinity (Except Chuck Norris and Buzz Lightyear), so, how are you open minded again?

Yeah, I saw that in my research too, but I'm talking about near the Indus Valley in Rajasthan where dating predates the construction of the test site. The evidence for either case is really all over the place, but usually in an atomic blast there's red trinitite from the copper used, and there seems to be evidence that it wasn't a typical nuclear blast with the same levels of radiation if there was one.

What's better than speed which you like to have continuous measurement for, you can I guess measure velocity instead, which is the change in position over time, but an electorn may not always travel in a straight line, or a predictable manner.

It's a complicated question "how do we know we are here?", and genetics itself is complicated enough. With regards to saying "perhaps dolphins" sort of implies that you think simpler life forms have no consciousness, the way consciousness seems to scientifically work, you can't just say something automatically doesn't have it and another thing automatically does, there's no clear cut way of looking at it, there's no finite boundaries, but rather a smooth spectrum. Other animals like even beetles are made out of essentially the same stuff of us, just hydrogen and then combinations of hydrogen, and even have somewhere around 60% of the same DNA, it's hard to think that something that similar has a definitively measure of 0 consciousness especially considering consciousness doesn't exist in units which you can quantify, and it makes a lot more sense that less complex things would have a less but still non zero consciousness because how in evolution or just general bio development could you just jump from 0 consciousness to complex mammalia consciousness? It doesn't really happen like that in evolution. Also, I made the same mistake with the "selifsh" gene theory, but it seems it could have been a misunderstanding, because surely someone has smart as Dawkins knows genes can't actually be selfish, he merely stated that you would think that after all this time the only genes that survive would have to be those that benefit an organism, which isn't always but is mostly true, and still doesn't say that any particular action is determined by anything to be selfish. With regards to memes, scientifically they can behave like genes, there are of course specific actions in a given culture that are not permitted, though the exact consequences for that particular mutation of the culture like in genes themselves is completely random. And, we're not made out of "dead" molecules, dead is a subjective term, the molecules are neither dead nor alive, there simply exists molecules which inhibit the factors that appear to create consciousness.

Are you sure you aren't confusing "speed" for "momentum"? Because the word "momentum" comes up in quantum mechanics almost infinitely more than "speed", and it doesn't mean the same thing as speed. "Speed" is almost meaningless in quantum mechanics, because particles are naturally in a state of superposition, which means they can occupy all possible states at once, and when you measure an electron, all you have is the measurement, you don't actually see it traveling distance over time.

I suppose mathematically something can be totally at rest, but I suppose you are right to an extent because even if you could have perfect circumstances for an object to seem at rest, there's all sorts of little vibrations, and not to mention the uncertainty of position in the atoms themselves, but that doesn't mean 0 is impossible. If I collide one proton and one positron, the net matter is exactly 0, you have exactly 0 protons left over.

Well, a formal definition of morals would be a "distinction between good and evil in an ethical manner", which ties into the native american interpretation because they would understand what living things actually deem good and evil, but consciousness itself I would say isn't directly related to morals, it's more of how something is taught, which is why morals around the world vary widely, you could have a fully conscious being but have them view murdering someone as a good thing in some respect, which is actually true for ancient Aztec and Mayan culture, as well as others.

You mention the concept of "always here", but "always" is a measure of time, and before the universe existed, there was no time to count how long the universe wasn't in existence, therefore the universe can have a beginning yet technically have always existed because the universe was in existence for the exact amount of time that time has existed and therefore has always existed for as long as time has been counting counting existence, which still isn't saying what your saying exactly. "Nothing with the capability to make something ain't nothing", the conjecture isn't that nothing made anything, it's that things made themselves, which there's already some evidence for anyway. All of nothingness and nonexistence was a single instantaneousity that took 0 time because there was no time to count it, which is why it's hard to grasp. Saying "it was always here" in your terms doesn't in any way shape or form explain how anything is here, the big bang however, does, regardless of if the age isn't always accurately determined. Infinity or endlessness also isn't an amount that anything can count to, things logically couldn't have "always" in your terms existed because intervals of time cannot count to infinity, they can't go "10001,10002, 10003, 10004, infinity" or "-1, -2, -3, -4, -infinity". Infinity isn't even a number, time can go on indefinitely from whatever it started at, it but can't ever attain the value of infinity itself.

In reality, a particle isn't really a ball, but rather a probability wave which has quantized states. The shape can change depending on the collision by changing the quantum state by changing the momentum which creates very specific shapes, and sometimes different types of refraction can occur. Also, because of the wave nature of particles, there's no finite point where you can say the particles collided, all you can say is when the magnetic repulsion becomes too strong for the momentum of a particle in a collision to to carry the particle any closer to the other particles. Essentially, even though electron sub-shells can move about an atom to create isomers, the general shape of different particles don't have this sort of soft rubber response that stretches and compresses them in different areas, they like to keep their shape.

Even if today it's not occurring as much, it was still the intention of the creators of the constitution of the United States that there should be freedom of religion. But, this argument is besides the point anyway, it neither proves nor disproves the existence of secular morality given that there is other evidence.

I did not once use the word time in the previous post. Obviously not if the universe had a beginning and it's here. I agree, nothing is nothing, until there is something, and nothingness doesn't care about probability, that's why it doesn't try to limit it. There's already scientific evidence that particles can appear for no external reason in a specific location, then stop existing as well, but even before that, there's still he issue that is the definition of the universe, which is that if the universe was created and the universe by definition contains everything, then before hte universe was created there could only have been nothing. Not only can the chicken-egg paradox be solved via evolution, but there's evidence not only that the universe can have a beginning, but that the universe can actually have an end.

It doesn't say anything about morals being cause and effect and having anything to do with the universe in the English dictionary, I guess for some other language that's what it could mean though, but given that, it also doesn't say morals directly pertain to religion either.

But gluon fields have strength varying at distance, I think by the square of the distance in fact. If quarks were compressed to an even greater point beyond degeneracy wouldn't that make the gluon field between any two quarks ever stronger? And, if matter is compressed into photons, how does weakening a gluon field do anything? Photons have no color charge.

Not in the slightest. If there's nothing around, then that means there's nothing limiting the probability of what can happen and no matter to exclude any other matter from existing.