Thou Shalt Not Test The Lord

[arian (Banned)]

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.

Data, do you mean some long proposed theory? Anselm tried his ontological argument, Luther his theses, and what has changed? Back to square one. Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.

I am not seeking for fame, I would be satisfied with a few people honestly sharing the truth with me. No reward other than that.

If not, go back to high school and stop embarassing yourself.

And what, become indoctrinated by theories?

Besides, I would have to finish grade school first, 5th, 6th, 7th, so on. My quest is to know God, and no Nobel prize has ever got anyone closer to knowing God yet, not that I know of.

Tell me, do you think 'nothing' exists, or NOT? Can you define 'nothing'?

I can define 'nothing', and can even show you an experiment to prove the existance for 'nothing', that 'perfect, absolute void/vacuum.'

Its application, ... the proof for God, or the One who IS, that 'Everything' they claim string theory can reveal. Not them theistic gods mind you...

[Guardian85]

Because he saw that 186,282 miles pre sec for the speed of light was not enough to complete his theory. E=MC is a better theory IMO, since light has no speed, it is instant.

If you have data backing this up, send it to the Nobel Institute. There is definetly a prize in physics waiting for you.

Data, do you mean some long proposed theory? Anselm tried his ontological argument, Luther his theses, and what has changed? Back to square one.

How about some applied science. Or are you to good for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_speed_of_light

Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source, and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.

Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.

What? Who would persecute/exterminate you for presenting scientific evidence? What screwed up reality are you living in?

[arian (Banned)]

How about some applied science. Or are you too good for that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_speed_of_light

Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source, and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.

[/quote]

1676-by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io
1865-James Clerk Maxwell proposed
1905, Albert Einstein postulated - postulate: to assume or suggest that something is true or exists, especially as the basis of an argument

I sure don't see anything 'precise' back in those days to measure whether or not light had speed? Does 'postulations' make it more credible, even if it was Einstein postulating it?
After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s 330 years of 'increasingly precise measurements', ... right-o, ..OK then.

I know a little in precision measurements, I used to measure curvic runouts on aircraft engine impellers to .00005 of an inch. under strict climate conditions, but measuring with hundred year old instruments something that moves at 186,282 miles p/s outside of a vacuum, well, ... just read up on the conditions and set up they used (mirrors), if that doesn't make you wonder, just study up on the way they first slowed, then stopped light in that frozen salt solution.
Or, .. the trillion-per-second camera used to capture a laserbeam going through a plastic Coke bottle.
Indoctrination my friend, all indoctrination to keep the BB theory alive.

Proving light has no speed would destroy the theory of the BB, AND evolution altogether, and anyone who does that would be persecured and exterminated. I am on that list and have been for a long time, I am alive by the grace of God.

What? Who would persecute/exterminate you for presenting scientific evidence? What screwed up reality are you living in?

Screwed up is right, and it IS a reality, ... a passing reality, for the day is soon approaching and we will see everything as it really is. So will everyone, only it will be too late for most people.

Thanks again my friend.

[Asmodean]

'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?

Not to offend, but were you by any chance home-schooled? Ask for your money back if yes.

Where did you get the J from?

E[J] is energy. m[kg] is mass and c[m/s] is the light speed constant. One Joule is 1kgm^2/s^2

So why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'?

Within space, the speed of light is the current known limit. The dynamics of the space itself, however, are different.

(also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Eccelerator and such?)

FTL neutrinos are not verified or reproduced, so for now, it's "faulty wiring until proven otherwise"

Oh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right?

Wrong. We very much like to hypothesize and theorize on what lies beyond the observable part within this universe and what lies beyond its outer "borders"

Just as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?

Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.

Only problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!

I think you have run afoul of some popular simplifications. I can not be arsed to write a book about it, even though I'm almost suffiiently bored to do just that, so I'll give you a non-answer to this one: it's not that simple.

Oh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?

No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.

I'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.

No rabbit hole. I am asking you to show me that you have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. If you do, I will gladly go in detail into the whys of square behind the c.

My quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equasions.

You know that this can get you banned for preaching, right?

We could argue equasions till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equasion theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using sytematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fy is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.

Wouldn't "I suck at math" be a much easier and much more honest answer? Doesn't your holy book say something about honesty being good and right?

I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light.

Of course not. 175 km/h does not define my car either.

Another word, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.

Who said anything about turning something into light? We are talking about the corelation between matter and energy.

Also, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.

Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.

We don't need sun-light or cande-light to think, or to reason.

Sunlight might be nice, seeing how with the current tech, we would all die without it.

The light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.

Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.

[Stevil]

Just as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?

Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.

No. We have no idea what this part of space looked like prior to the big bang. It may have been a large black hole or two colliding, in which case time did exist prior.

Also, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.

Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.

Agree with Asmo, light existed prior to the evolution of eyes.

The light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.

Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.

It seems that biblical assertions are inconsistent with scientific theory. Hmmm, what can we make of that?

[Asmodean]

Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.

No. We have no idea what this part of space looked like prior to the big bang. It may have been a large black hole or two colliding, in which case time did exist prior.

Yes.   (Different sides of the same coin. Off the top of my head, think of a phase shifted tangent graph, where the asymptote y represents the Big Bang. Yes, I know tan sucks for this example, but I'm just not bored enough to find a better one)

[Tank]

"for only then can you start to seek out the real truth."

As I have said in the past, anything wrapped in the propaganda dressing of "the truth", instantly losses credibility.
If it actually is the truth, you don't need to dress it up. E=MC² is not given such superfluous dressing.

Precisely. The more somebody has to sell their world view as opposed to simply proposing it and leaving the idea to let it stand its own feet the less credibility the idea has.

Hello Tank.

I'm not selling anything, I am proposing it, and my participating in here debates is proof of that.

I am here to reason, if you disagree with something I say, knock it off its feet, by all means. This is not church where we have to sit through a sermon without being able to make a comment.. or is it?

I put it out there and let it stand on its own feet, if anyone comments on it, I listen and respond. I am NOT promoting any religion, only defining them and question them.

Bullshit.

[DeterminedJuliet]

First, Satan will never cure cancer, but will influence others to cause it.

Okay, there was a lot of stuff that I didn't really understand, but I found this particular quote especially bewildering. Satan influences people to cause cancer?

Pollution, chemo-therapy etc...

It's that 'last dose, that last treatment' that kills them. What do you think 'Cancer Hospitals' were built for? Cancer-Hospitals, ... the name says it all.
Hospice is where they watch them that were chosen for extermination, die, and act like they are making their last days more comfortable, ... LOL

I don't see anything about that that is "LOL" worthy.

[Asmodean]

I don't see anything about that that is "LOL" worthy.

The logic..?

[Hector Valdez]

This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.

Faith in the Lord is actually a quite reasonable proposition in which religious heterodoxy is maintained, while still allowing religious innovation. It prevents the fragmentation of society around different tribal sects that will start to kill each other, and also allows any new ideas of morality,etc, to be framed in a religious mindset that makes it easier for people of that religion to accept. As for traditionalism, that will always bog down a religion eventually, creating the need every so often for a new god to replace the old one. But the idea of not testing this god is intrinsic to all of these religions, and indeed, a vital element of the whole shabang.

In short: It's not the truth. It's the agreement.

[DeterminedJuliet]

This has always bothered the hell out of me: the condition that you must have faith and can never expect God to show anything to you.

Faith in the Lord is actually a quite reasonable proposition in which religious heterodoxy is maintained, while still allowing religious innovation. It prevents the fragmentation of society around different tribal sects that will start to kill each other, and also allows any new ideas of morality,etc, to be framed in a religious mindset that makes it easier for people of that religion to accept. As for traditionalism, that will always bog down a religion eventually, creating the need every so often for a new god to replace the old one. But the idea of not testing this god is intrinsic to all of these religions, and indeed, a vital element of the whole shabang.

In short: It's not the truth. It's the agreement.

Well, it certainly works to hold religion together. But then the question becomes: should religion be held together? Should people have faith?

[Hector Valdez]

I don't see why not, if it floats their boat.

On a side note, I am quite interested in theories of space-time. Allow me to propose a series of ideas:

Suppose that space does not actually contain a dimensional 'shape' or even exist as an entity at all? How then would we explain that the universe appears to us as three dimensional?

I answer that: Just as a single camera allowed to pivot will percieve all of space in only two dimensions, two cameras will percieve the exact same space as three dimensions. Furthermore, three cameras arranged in a triangular shape will be able to percieve objects as being capable of motion in four dimensions: That is, three relative motions wherein an object travels closer or farther away from one of the cameras while at the same time moving parallel or in the opposite direction of the other two. furthermore, a fourth motion is allowed by moving the object perpendicular to the triangular plane of cameras/eyeballs! More elaborate matrices of cameras in fixed positions appear to percieve the same space in even more dimensions, which suggests that the shape of any particular space-zone is relative to the number of fixed points of reference.

2. Suppose that time does not exist as an actual dimension. How would such observations as the speed of light be explained?

I answer that: It appears that ny measurement of time is dependent on regulated, syncopated actions, but in reality, the amount of actions that occur during any one particular action is completely relative. To give an example: If I swing my arm, a certain number of actions through the universe will have completed before my arm makes the transition from point A to point B. If I swing my arm near the speed of light, a much, much lesser amount of actions can be observed through the corresponding interval. Thus, from the perspective of my arm, the universe has slowed down, and from the perspective of an outside observer, my arm has appeared to speed up. Regarding the speed of light, all actions form a constant relation to the the distance(and therefore a measurement of action) the speed of light travels compared to the distance the same object travels in a certain time. This seems to imply a universal standard of time measurement throughout the universe, where any action may be absolutely measured temporally by comparing the distance light will travel in a vacuum during the interval of said action. Thus, all actions may be measured relative to the speed of light, but an actual temporal dimension is completely superfluous to this.

I also have a theory about gravitational waves being related somehow to the effect strings(from string theory) might have on their environment(vibrating strings generating waves and what not). Naturally, a massive concentration of mater would mean a massive concentration of vibrating strings sending vibrations into their immediate environment and whatnot. The incredibly small force of a vibrating string would, of course, account for the extreme weakness of a gravitational pull. Alas, I am still working on the theory.

[arian (Banned)]

'c'^2 is energy? So are you suggesting that Einsteins equasion shold be E=MJ ?

Not to offend, but were you by any chance home-schooled? Ask for your money back if yes.

No, not home schooled, but kept-home-from-schooled.

Where did you get the J from?

Joules.

E[J] is energy. m[kg] is mass and c[m/s] is the light speed constant. One Joule is 1kgm^2/s^2

What if light is instant?

So (M)mass the size of a grain of salt would contain enough energy to run about a 5,000 sq ft. house for a month? If that is so, I can only imagine the Power in the Mass in the entire universe? .. all from nothing, well doesn't it make you wonder?

So why do they claim that the outer-limits of our universe is expanding much faster than the 'speed of light'?

Within space, the speed of light is the current known limit. The dynamics of the space itself, however, are different.

So BB theorists either don't want to, or can't imagine beyond the 'observable universe', which one?

(also all the other things they have found exceeding the speed of light in the Particle Accelerator and such?)

FTL neutrinos are not verified or reproduced, so for now, it's "faulty wiring until proven otherwise"

Thanks, .. but not how I read the News about scientist finding particles far exceeding the speed of light?

Oh yea, ... because we are only concerned of the 'observable' universe, what is beyond that is none of scientific business, right?

Wrong. We very much like to hypothesize and theorize on what lies beyond the observable part within this universe and what lies beyond its outer "borders"

Outer borders? You mean like when the universe was as small as a pinhead, and resided in a point in space?
What is your theory on what lay outside the pin sized universe? It expanded in 'something', .. or.. ? Well, I just don't understand how 'something' could exist in a 'point in space' when the universe is all that is? What do you think the pin-sized universe was residing in at the 'epoch' or that gravitational singularity, or that Moment of the BB expansion?

Just as the question to 'what was before the BB', since time started with the BB, right?

Yes, the linear time we use is meaningless before the Big Bang.

Linear time? I thought time is defined as a system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events?

Was there anything happening within the pin-sized universe before its sudden expansion? If so, then there was time. Or is my question 'meaningless'?

Only problem is that 'time' is defined as distinguishing events, so how can a pin-sized universe exist before it created spacetime? Remember the universe is said to be 'all there is'!

I think you have run afoul of some popular simplifications. I can not be arsed to write a book about it, even though I'm almost suffiiently bored to do just that, so I'll give you a non-answer to this one: it's not that simple.

Yes, only in the explanation of the BB theory are we allowed to write complex books to answer simple questions. I know, .. it's way too complicated for the 90 percent of humans on earth, so I better just take your word for it?

Oh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?

No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.

I'm not running down that rabbit hole, sorry. I study only the parts that oppose logic like giving a speed to light, or, the truth revealed in Christ.

No rabbit hole. I am asking you to show me that you have a rudimentary understanding of mathematics. If you do, I will gladly go in detail into the whys of square behind the c.

Thanks, .. I was just reading up on the 'speed of light' and found the experiments done to measure it unacceptable. I'm sure we could come up with a mathematical equation to make it seem it had speed.

My quest here is to reveal God to those willing to hear, not equations.

You know that this can get you banned for preaching, right?

Ah, right. "You shall not test the Lord thy God" Post, .. I forgot that this is not an atheist forum, but the 'No Proving there is a God Forum', sorry.

We could argue equations till the cows come home, and E=MC^2 is an equation theory, 2+2=4 is fact, just as science is observing the physical world and its manifestation by using systematic observations, what is already here, fact. Also, Sci-fi is opposed to science as religion is to knowing our Creator Bible-God, I try to define the differences.

Wouldn't "I suck at math" be a much easier and much more honest answer? Doesn't your holy book say something about honesty being good and right?

I would not say "I suck at math", I was just deprived of education. I have read debates between some scientists, and they could not agree on anything when it came to these subjects. I understand the concept. I'm sure you know math much better than me. When science wonders off on some theories, I look into whether or not they have proven some fact they claim they did, and so far it is all still just hearsay.

I am saying that 186,282mps does not define light.

Of course not. 175 km/h does not define my car either.

May I ask what does 'c' stand for in the equation?

Another words, something traveling 186,282mps will not turn into light.

Who said anything about turning something into light? We are talking about the corelation between matter and energy.

I thought that it all started with 'energy', then it somehow turned into mass?

Also, I'm saying that the 'light' that we see in this physical world is only to help our eyes to see in the physical world.

Ass-first. Our eye is only here to help us see the physical world using light.

And yet you still cannot see, nor understand what I am saying. How much 'sun light' do you think you would need to see the light?

We don't need sun-light or candle-light to think, or to reason.

Sunlight might be nice, seeing how with the current tech, we would all die without it.

Hmm, .. almost as if it was all planned out? .. do you think it was just a Big-Bang and expanded into all this beauty? Don't you think that it is this theory that is 'ass-backwards'?

The light I am talking about is the one defined in the Bible, before God created the sun and the moon.

Like, for instance, the cosmic background radiation? Was there before the Sun, which was there before the Moon. Not exactly made by some bronze age idiot god, but still pretty cool.

Cosmic background radiation, that's a good one too.
Can you explain to me why you define the Creator God as an 'idiot'? I see you guys define everyone here who mention God as idiots too, why? Doesn't science prove otherwise? I believe that the word 'idiot' is used way too much here, must be in the forum rules?

[Asmodean]

No, not home schooled, but kept-home-from-schooled.

Suspected as much. For someone who appears to be rather middle-aged, you also appear to be one of the least educated people I have come in contact with.

That is not a mark against you as much as it is one against your parents or legal guardians, but it does make the job of those trying to explain something to you harder.

Joules.

...Are a unit of measurement.

What if light is instant?

It is not.

So (M)mass the size of a grain of salt would contain enough energy to run about a 5,000 sq ft. house for a month?

Eh? Just so I don't have to do it myself, could you convert from that silly system you are using to SI in the future?

That said, the statement is only barely coherent, but from what I can read out of it, yes, you could probably "run" a 5000ft^2 house for a month using a power source the size and/or the mass of a grain of salt given proper technology. That said, I'm not sure how much energy is required to "run" a house, so you will not get more educated calculations without providing more data.

If that is so, I can only imagine the Power in the Mass in the entire universe? .. all from nothing, well doesn't it make you wonder?

What is that Power with capital P you are talking about? Are you refering to energy? Work? Momentum?

So BB theorists either don't want to, or can't imagine beyond the 'observable universe', which one?

Not necessarilly their job.

That said, those who want to, can and do.

Thanks, .. but not how I read the News about scientist finding particles far exceeding the speed of light?

FTL neutrinos are not verified nor reproduced. Until and unless that happens, the assumption is that they were not FTL at all.

Outer borders? You mean like when the universe was as small as a pinhead, and resided in a point in space?
What is your theory on what lay outside the pin sized universe?

I am not a theoretical physicist, astronomer or someone otherwise in position to create my own "theories". The theories, facts and hypotheses I present were developed, tested, reviewed and verified (where applicable) by people far better educated than I in those areas.

I do not speculate on what was outside the Universe prior to inflation, as that does not interest me nearly as much as what is outside it right now. However, since you call for speculation, the best guess would likely be other universes.

It expanded in 'something', .. or.. ?

Your question is extremely vague. It can only be answered by both yes and no, which is not an answer at all, really.

Well, I just don't understand how 'something' could exist in a 'point in space' when the universe is all that is? What do you think the pin-sized universe was residing in at the 'epoch' or that gravitational singularity, or that Moment of the BB expansion?

Again, the question is not clearly defined, but as it is, I'm not sure it has an applicable answer. It may have been the "emptiness" between the universes (Or not, if we throw multiverse out of the window), or there may have been something else... We just do not know.

Linear time? I thought time is defined as a system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events?

Yes (Sort of). And?

Was there anything happening within the pin-sized universe before its sudden expansion? If so, then there was time. Or is my question 'meaningless'?

When the Universe was the size of a pin, it already existed. The inflation is theorized to have hapened "after" the Big Bang, sort of in the same way as a shock wave follows an explosion.

Yes, only in the explanation of the BB theory are we allowed to write complex books to answer simple questions. I know, .. it's way too complicated for the 90 percent of humans on earth, so I better just take your word for it?

Of course you shouldn't take my word for it! I'm not even an astronomer, for pity's sake!

Go to school. Learn what you can. With the basic understanding of physics, mathematics, astronomy and the like, you can keep yourself updated on the latest in scientific breakthroughs, setbacks, standing theories and facts. What's more, doing that, you will be less likely to misunderstand simplifications, or worse, take simplifications literally.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.

Of course there is more. And while the string theory has potential to evolve into a functioning theory of everything, today, it is not. There are still weak links and assumptions there that need to be addressed.

Thanks, .. I was just reading up on the 'speed of light' and found the experiments done to measure it unacceptable. I'm sure we could come up with a mathematical equation to make it seem it had speed.

Which experiments were those?

We can determine the speed of light using multiple sources and methods of calculation. If one displeases you, try another. The speed of light will still be the same.

Ah, right. "You shall not test the Lord thy God" Post, .. I forgot that this is not an atheist forum, but the 'No Proving there is a God Forum', sorry.

If you have good, peer-reviewed evidence for gods, do present it. If you have a hypothesis you want us to review, we can probably do that too. If what you have is a "holy book" and some anecdotes, however, that would be preaching.

I would not say "I suck at math", I was just deprived of education.

I wouldn't call a shovel a shovel, just a dirt-moving contraption.

I have read debates between some scientists, and they could not agree on anything when it came to these subjects.

But that is the beauty of science! If I go and claim that the Earth is flat, and then comes a guy and says "Bullshit! It's round, and here is my evidence" and upon examining the evidence, I am proven wrong and he right, science progresses and the standing facts are changed.

I understand the concept. I'm sure you know math much better than me. When science wonders off on some theories, I look into whether or not they have proven some fact they claim they did, and so far it is all still just hearsay.

Hearsay is not science. That is not how science works at all.

May I ask what does 'c' stand for in the equation?

The vector-independent velocity (also known as "speed") of light. It is a parameter.

I thought that it all started with 'energy', then it somehow turned into mass?

E=mc^2 is quite reversible.

And yet you still cannot see, nor understand what I am saying. How much 'sun light' do you think you would need to see the light?

Some fractions of 1lx, I do not know how many exactly.

Hmm, .. almost as if it was all planned out? .. do you think it was just a Big-Bang and expanded into all this beauty? Don't you think that it is this theory that is 'ass-backwards'?

And again, you are approaching it ass-first. Remember, the stars were there long before life on Earth - even the Earth was there long before life on Earth. Life has built itself around what it has, not the other way around.

Can you explain to me why you define the Creator God as an 'idiot'? I see you guys define everyone here who mention God as idiots too, why? Doesn't science prove otherwise? I believe that the word 'idiot' is used way too much here, must be in the forum rules?

Oh, you can call someone an idiot as long as it is in context and as long as you are prepared to justify it.

Let's start at the beginning: God is supposed to have created light before creating the sources of light. Aside from a logical pitfall uneducated goat herders from several millenia ago happily fell into, that is quite stupid. It's like building a car before inventing a wheel.

Eh... One by one, the examples of god's idiocy would take me days to write out. There was also the garden and the tree and his near-do-well kid and the flood and... A whole load of inefficient, borderline-schizophrenic and utterly stupid crap.

[Guardian85]

Oh yea, .. string-theory, the answer to 'everything', right?

No, it is not. We do not currently have a theory of everything.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html
For starters, but there is more.

The article clearly states that there is no working TOE as of yet. You gave us an examlpe of how there is no current TOE to prove that there is in fact a working TOE.

String theory is sometimes described as possibly being the "theory of everything."

Einstein was simply ahead of his time. More than half a century later, his dream of a unified theory has become the Holy Grail of modern physics

.

And a sizeable part of the physics and mathematics community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer.