It is already known that the moon was formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago. A new dating method makes it possible to reduce the range of error to 20 million years * The new dating provides a basis for the big collision theory
Researchers who found isotopes of tungsten in lunar rocks and concluded that the moon formed or came close to the earth 30-50 million years after the formation of the solar system. That's a blink of an eye relative to the 4.5 billion years of Earth and the Solar System's existence, and that means the Moon is almost as old as its progenitor.
Most scientists agree that the Moon is Earth's interstellar medium, most of which was ejected when a Mars-sized object collided with Earth in the early days of the Solar System. Now European scientists say they have discovered the age of the moon, hidden in samples brought back by the Apollo pilots in the XNUMXs.
Walla news adds from the news agencies: the accepted theory about the formation of the moon is known as the big collision theory. She believes that the moon was formed as a result of a collision between a body roughly the size of Mars and the earth, not long (in cosmic terms) after the earth was formed. The collision melted the impacting body and scattered parts of it and the Earth's mantle into space and orbit around the Earth. These parts coalesced and formed the moon.
Alongside this theory, other theories have been put forward in the past, such as the co-creation theory (the Moon and the Earth were created together as a binary system), the detachment theory (the Moon was torn from the Earth) and the capture theory (the Moon was captured by the Earth's gravity). But these theories do not explain most of the observational evidence and are inconsistent with the careful analysis of about 400 kg of rocks brought from the moon by the Apollo spacecraft.
The question of when the collision that caused the formation of the moon occurred has proven to be difficult to crack. The rocks brought by the Apollo spacecraft were dated using radiometric methods, based on knowledge of the decay rate of radioactive elements, and it was found that the oldest rocks among them are 4.56 billion years old to 4.29 billion years old - a gap of 270 million years.
The New York Times reports that a team of European scientists recently used a different radiometric method, based on the decay of the hafnium element into the tungsten isotope, and obtained a much more accurate dating. In an article published by the team of researchers in the journal "Science", they report that the collision between the body and the Earth and the formation of the Moon occurred between 4.537 billion years ago and 4.517 billion years ago - a span of twenty million years.
"The hafnium-tungsten method is very suitable for dating the formation of planets," the head of the research team, Dr. Torsten Klein from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told the New York Times. Until today, said Dr. Klein, the use of the method for dating rocks from the moon has been problematic, and this is because the cosmic radiation that "bombards" the moon causes the transformation of another element found in the rocks, tantalum, into the same tungsten isotope. It is therefore impossible to say how much of the tungsten originates from hennium.
Klein and his team solved the problem by focusing on pieces of metal found in lunar rocks. There is no tantalum in the metal, so it is known that all tungsten originates from the decay of hafnium. According to Klein, it is not clear exactly how long the formation of the moon took. "What is clear is that it happened in less than twenty million years," he said. He added that the new dating provides a basis for the theory of the great collision. "If the moon was formed in a more 'normal' process," he said, "it should have happened at an earlier time."
156 תגובות
There is a mistake in the scientific theory, there is no possibility of the crystallization of dust and rocks, without there having been a body with gravity before. Therefore, the theory that the moon was formed from the product of a collision is not possible at all.
More than six months and all the educated physicists with university degrees are unable to give an answer to the child? Really surprising…
The Ridiculous Ltd. is lucky that the boy understood the matter and left.
Miracles
Hang in there, there are funnier parts, not to mention you're giving up an entire hour of dramatic background music.
WD
right. I got confused between his lies…. The video is funny – there is one figure in there, with a relatively large error, that is used over and over and over again…..I only managed to watch 10 minutes of the video before I broke down.
Miracles
I think you didn't look at his link, he brought another lie. The truth is that it is a lie that is interesting because it shows how much a straight line needs to be twisted in order to get proof of God (the answer is quite a lot).
Life
Note that Sharon does not hesitate to quote from Christian preachers, the main thing is to promote his agenda. He also does not answer questions that "must not be answered"...
Life
Yaron and his friends are not here for nothing. They are not dark haredi in Plato's cave.
They are missionaries of the worst kind and I think it should be made clear to everyone who reads the site who they are.
I'm sure there are religious commentators here who don't come to preach - and I even know some. But they don't call us stupid liars.
Miracles
Yaron is not a liar. He doesn't do it on purpose. He simply belongs to a group of innocent people who fall victim to anyone who wants to present some theory with a veneer of science to justify their religious worldview. Do not treat him categorically. If so he thinks he will be perfumed.
Yaron
And here is another rebuttal:
https://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/rosh/
Yaron
Here is another rebuttal to the lie
https://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/Chance.pdf
Yaron
Here is a rebuttal of your falsehood - read, apologize and move on:
https://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/course/Articles/assasinations.pdf
Yaron
This movie reminds me of the idea according to which different messages are hidden in the Torah by jumping different and constant intervals between letters of any message. For example, a word received after jumping for example 5 letters and receiving the message word. A theory that has long been disproved as one big piece of nonsense. I will give you only one reason, leave it to you and learn. With the final letters in the Hebrew alphabet today there are 26 letters. The ancient Hebrew alphabet had 17 letters. do me a favor Don't be the village fool.
Yaron
In which scientific journal was this study published?
Aviram Shalom
The research shown in the video was conducted by Professor Haim Shor from Ben Gurion University in the Negev. It presents scientific research not theory in clear and simple language and is probably intended for young and smart guys like you who are looking for the truth.
The video is in English with Hebrew translation.
http://in.bgu.ac.il/engn/Pages/news/HaimShoreYoutube.aspx
Aviram, ignore all the slanders and all the epithets, you are a smart guy who asks the questions. The clowns here have no answer and probably won't have one, so they will always divert the discussion to where it is convenient for them. Science, rulings and knowledge are not reserved for secular people, atheists or those who don't wear a kippah. There are many scientists Those with a hooded name are not secular and believers. Even Newton was a believer. The real trolls are here and they expect you to believe that out of nothing, all of a sudden, for no reason, this whole universe was created. It's kind of like believing that the car or the refrigerator or the computer in my house were created by themselves out of nothing.
lion
In the ancient religions, and also in Judaism, God is not the "all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good God".
In particular - the story of creation illustrates this, in particular with looking at the story on which our story of creation is based (Hanuma Elish").
Back to the video that Yaron directed to Aviram https://youtu.be/sO7-n4dSVAQ Everything is in the eye of the beholder. When I saw the video I did not interpret it as a ridiculous attempt by a religious physicist to prove the existence of God. The message I received is that there is no God, but the laws of physics and the history of the universe reveal characteristics similar to those attributed by religion to God's abilities.
gift,
If you wrote your words to me then that's not what Sean Carroll is saying at all. He says that there is almost no reason to say that we know that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago but that at that time, our knowledge is insufficient to say what happened.
And the difference is profound. One is something said by people who did not know that the earth revolves around the sun and the other is a physical claim, defined and well formulated. One claims that diseases are caused by sins and that a sacrifice must be made and the other allows the construction of iPhones and the large particle accelerator. Choose what you like
Because in that space, which is before our space, there is also a faculty of physics, and there you learn that before space there is nothing.
Sorry! Severe distortion! They say there that from a standard point of view there is nothing, but from another, speculative point of view, there is another space before the space with another faculty.
But by and large I accept your criticism, because no, Sean and Albenzo are strong in physics, and I am strong in being a layman.
But for a layman like me, to say that there is infinity without scaling, is a statement that does not fall short of its genius, from the Jewish statement that the Creator is infinity without a body. Um.. what's the difference?
Really... don't you understand that we have a limitation in the brain to understand?
In spite of what Xi wrote, absolutely not every physicist behaves as Xi stated and his distortion according to Albantezo screams to heaven.
Here is an academic lecture by Sean Carroll on the subject and he is not Shay's physicist. I'm really sweating trying to understand one word out of 10 but quite fascinating even for laymen. At 22:10 he says that there is almost no justification for claiming that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. What is true is that according to the theory of relativity, 13.8 billion years back, is a limit beyond which we do not know what happened and it is possible that what happened was the beginning of space-time and it is possible that it was not. This is exactly what Albantezo said: the standard claim and some more speculative theories. Why do you have to distort?
https://youtu.be/vMDft1Xzn1M?list=WL&t=1295
Aviram
Interesting, apart from Yaron who gave this stupid link, no one here told you that they know the answer to why there was a bank of time in the universe before its zero*, but that's why you decided that people who are willing to accept the fact that they don't have an answer to this question are people who can't say no You know, and people who have decided that they know the answer to this question because that's how they want to believe even though their supporting evidence and confirmations for their belief amount to one big zero are people who have the answer to your question.
Understand, everyone who answered you here except Yaron has no problem saying that they don't know, we simply both already said it and didn't come claiming that we know. All that happened was that they tried to explain to you why those who think they have an answer make a false claim.
If it's hard for you to live with it, maybe this really isn't the place for you, and maybe the way of life that is based on arriving at the truth based on evidence and not on desires is not for you either.
*Although it is not even clear if there is such a thing at all
Aviram
You will not find an answer. Every physicist will tell you in the end: God!
You asked Albanzo (who actually took the time to answer you, a whole long post, and only after you ignored him called you a troll) what was before physics? Nosens! Do not ask questions about God! Physics is God!
You asked the cap-wearing physicist: What was before physics? God is God! And who created God? Nonsense.
So everything, if you are a good student, you should understand -
Nonsense is God! The incomprehensible is God!
Aviram
You will not find an answer. Every physicist will tell you in the end: God!
You asked Albanzo (who actually took the time to answer you, a whole long post, and only after you ignored him called you a troll) what was before physics? Nosens! Do not ask questions about God! Physics is God!
You asked the cap-wearing physicist: What was before physics? God is God! And who created God? Nonsense.
So everything, if you are a good student, you should understand -
Nonsense is God! The incomprehensible is God!
my father
I'm blocked again….
Aviram
You are not at all able, and I'm sure you don't want to either, to understand what is being explained to you.
The man in the film is wrong, and he is a dishonest person.
The creation story in the book of Genesis is copied from an older story, the Babylonian "Anoma Elish". In the original story there is a war between a number of gods, and the biblical story also clearly says that there are several gods, probably due to mistakes by the biblical translator.
The biblical story is also completely wrong. In the beginning there was no light, nor could there have been light!! Light does not exist in nature, light is a sensation in our brain, whose origin (not always) is photons in a certain, very narrow field.
I gave you an intuitive explanation, and if you had an iota of desire to learn, you would relate to it.
If you want to call the laws of physics "God" then please. Only, don't lie to yourself that this is the biblical God.
Hello everyone.
Apparently no one has an answer to my question and as if you are unable to say you don't know.
Albendzo, that's right, I'm not really a troll. As if trolls don't ask such questions. And the fact is that there is another person who noticed this fact. In general, it's like how is your explanation more or less convincing than his? And he's also a doctor of nuclear physics, meaning not some delusional person according to what I've checked On him. Moreover, you are just like the jurisprudence teacher who, instead of saying I don't know or there is no answer yet, prefers to give vague answers as if it is impossible to ask this question, it is not physics and you are even worse because you call others names without knowing them.
Thanks everyone I will look elsewhere.
Liron
Could be a sound idea, there is some super-writer who is able to create physics, but it also sounds ridiculous... does he have a cloak?
to Albenzo
I understand what you are saying. Let's keep exploring. But how can you investigate? Let's pick our wars. And stop fighting over the question of "there is nothing" because this is not a physicist.
It's a fact. There is space, time. Some people are stupid. Fact. And now we'll play in this sandbox, and we won't go outside, because it's scary outside.
They will answer, even if we witness thousands of explosions that come at a dizzying pace, the Bible will still write in Genesis that God created the explosion. And go and deny it.
To the doppelganger professor from the movie
Something that is outside the box... beyond the point where physics is not? What to do? Our brain only understands physics! Do you understand? No matter how many smileys we put into the computer, it will still analyze them like letters, and will never understand emotions and act from the gut. So how do you expect us to understand something that is not a physicist?
to Einstein
And Albanzo's professional explanation, I didn't understand a word of it... another space that was before the current space... what's there? The Marvel Universe? At least it sounds interesting... but go research it... if our laws of physics collapse, isn't it like trying to send a research spacecraft into the universe inside the black hole?
I watched the video, and carefully read Albancho's comment.
Both say that we only understand physics, and all our concepts of "space", time" are concepts from the world of physics.
Both say that "before" the bang there was no space and no time, nor any other physical thing. Therefore it is impossible to address this nonsense.
So why argue? If no one knows…
Yaron
You owe me five minutes of your life for this retarded video.
Say, Aviram.
Are you looking for answers? Or are you actually Yaron in disguise? Some troll trying to make his bullshit look less stupid by playing some characters?
If you are looking for answers to questions about science, look for them in science. Don't look for them with rabbis and charlatans.
Aviram
The video Shiron brought is a hash of logical errors that a person built as a rationalization to justify his belief. Do yourself a favor and read elbentzo's response which has been released for publication now.
Surely there is some word or part of a word in there that in another context is a misused word? There are a lot of them, it's hard to check. Anyway, as soon as I got back to the site after two days in the air, I let go.
my father
Why is my comment blocked?
Aviram
I will try to explain it to you as I understand it. It's an intuitive explanation and certainly not accurate, but at least it helps me.
I look at it two ways. The first way is "time reversal". We know that the stars are receding, and we know that the speed of receding depends on the distance. So, let's reverse the direction. Every star in the universe will see all the other stars come to it, and in 14 billion years, every star will see the other stars, all of them, come to it. There is no "outside the universe" here.
The second way is to keep the direction, but reduce the dimension. Imagine an inflated balloon with all the stars on the surface of the balloon. Each star will see the other stars receding, the speed of receding depending on distance. If the mass of the stars can distort the balloon, it is also possible to understand the force of gravity, because the distance between bodies will tend to decrease, unless we apply an opposing force.
There are more details, but the idea helps to understand that there is no "outside the universe" and no "before the big bang".
Yaron
If he deserves an answer so much why are you giving him one?
Hi Yaron
Wow, thank you. It's as if someone finally noticed and addressed this space and it's also as if from the field of science. And that's extremely powerful.
Aviram,
To the question "Was there something before the bang and if so, then what?" There is still no answer in physics. The way science works is that you take a hypothesis, write it quantitatively, make predictions and ways to test it, and then test it against reality. If it fails any test, it is wrong and goes to waste. If she passes all the tests, she survives and continues to be tested in more and more areas, until they find a test that she fails. So we move on to the next hypothesis.
We currently have no ability to test hypotheses regarding what happened before the bang. All the tests we can produce (as of today - note that this is a limitation that we may definitely be able to overcome) only test up to the moment of the bang. And the big bang theory does stand up well in all these tests.
What preceded the bang? There are many ideas and hypotheses. The simplest, is that there was no such thing. You say "there is no way that the singular point was not in some space", but why is there no way? There definitely is. I haven't seen the movie you are talking about, but it is absolutely wrong to say that the singular point was "inside" space at the time of the bang. She is the space, and as such she was in nothing. So the simplest and most common answer (and also the most logical in terms of classical physics) is that there is no such thing "before the bang". This is nonsense.
But within the framework of quantum physics, other hypotheses can also be made. For example, that the bang is cyclical: the universe goes through a series of bangs, that is, before the bang there was another space, very very large, which froze and contracted (this is not accurate: it did not contract but lost its size scale and therefore there was no difference between large and small, but it is a bit complicated). There are also hypotheses within string theory about large membranes that collided with each other and caused a bang (within such ideas, the universe did not begin with a bang as you probably already understood, but the bang is simply a landmark somewhere during the life of the universe).
The most important thing to remember is that if we still don't know the answer to something, then we should try to research and understand. This may sound obvious to you, but unfortunately there are many, many people who think that if they don't know the answer, then it's a sign that they should shout "God did it!" and put on a cap. Too bad, we won't get anywhere like this.
And please, please, ignore Yaron's video. I haven't heard such a mix of nonsense and lies in a long time. The whole video is just an "appeal to authority" - you are presented with someone who is supposedly an expert and understands a matter and you are expected to believe him simply because he says he has a degree in physics. But the truth is - and you are welcome to check it yourself - that everything he says in the video about God is simply nonsense. Cheap puns intended to make baseless arguments sound like they are taken from the world of physics. For example, he changes the word "quantum fluctuations" to "laws of nature", and then tries to sell some nonsense about the fact that the laws of nature are outside of nature, precede it, etc... of course this is nonsense. Quantum fluctuations are a quantum phenomenon just like light, matter, etc., it is not outside of nature, did not precede it, not shoes. I will not go into the analysis of the entire video now, but it is important to remember that just because someone tells you "trust me, I am a physicist" it does not mean that you should believe him. Check for yourself, you will see that he is just trying to sell you nonsense under the guise of science.
Hi Aviram
When a young man your age asks such a smart question he deserves an answer
https://youtu.be/sO7-n4dSVAQ
Hi Albantezo
I happened to see a film on the website of the Davidson Institute. The film claims to explain how the universe was supposedly created. Then right at the beginning of the film (it is translated) the narrator opens up that there was a point in space, etc. Now as if this is exactly the question I asked correctly that according to the ruling the singularity is the space we know but as if what was the space Where the point was before the explosion, no one answers this. Even the film itself is satisfied with a casual statement that the point was in space. What is this space? As if it is true that today's space is what we know, that is, the universe with all the galaxies and black holes, etc. But as if there is no way that the singular point was not in any space otherwise what did it rest on? This is what is not clear in all the explanations.
Thanks
Aviram,
The singularity is not something that is within the space, but is the space itself. What you said in your second comment is exactly the point that you must understand is wrong - and I will try to help you.
The universe is not contained within a space greater than itself. Think of the universe as an infinite space, the distance between any two points in it is the distance we measure today with a ruler times a certain size X. Today X=1, that is, today the distance between one point and another is exactly what you would get if you measured with a ruler. But X wasn't always 1. It used to be a smaller number. And before that, even smaller. The singularity is the point where X=0, meaning that our space is indeed infinite, but the distance between any two points in it is the result of measuring the ruler times 0. Which, as we know, always comes out to be 0. So if every two points in space are at 0 distance from each other, then practically the whole universe is basically one big point. This is the singularity (in two words and abstractly).
So at the singularity point there was indeed all the matter and indeed there was all the energy, but it was not inside any other space. She herself is the space that is the entire universe.
And I still don't understand the connection you make between matter and time. As far as I know there is no such connection, but maybe I still didn't understand something from your question. Hope that's a little clearer. If not, ask and I'll try to help.
Shmulik,
How do you get to free comments?
clarification
What I mean is that it is as if the space of the universe is within a space greater than itself.
Albentezo
Exactly what you explained, the physics teacher also explained.
So, first of all, what is not clear about this is that the singular point, if it contained all the energy and matter in the universe, according to logic, it should be at least larger than the sun in diameter. And it is also clear that it was in a certain space, as if it could not be resting on something. Then there is obviously space and there is Matter and mass and then there should be time and then as if the whole theory of relativity should be valid there as well and this is the paradox because according to physics it is not but only from the moment of the bang.
But the physics teacher solved us with the answer that it is impossible to ask this question. Which is strange.
Albantezo, thank you
If a school student comes and is just as interested in the Theory of Relativity as we are, it is important that we respond to him, otherwise the world's heroes will catch him and not let him go.
And one more thing: if you can jump to the free comments, I referred there to the Barwicks article talking about the realism of Funk Hegel that the New York Times referred to. They claim that if there is a "deep" reality, their result strengthens the claim that the Hegel function is real. Does this strengthen Everett's theory of many worlds?
I don't put the link here because then my father will block me for a year, more or less.
Miracles, a rebuke: of all the things you choose to refer to, you didn't give a second to Aviram 🙂
Shmulik,
It's always nice to have someone like Lawrence Krauss say the exact same things as you. I wrote a short response to Aviram and Liron, but for some reason it was blocked (even though it did not contain links, text in English, or anything suspicious).
Aviram,
I could not understand your question. According to the theory of general relativity, what you call "gravitational force" is actually curvature of space (gravity is not created by curvature, but rather it is the curvature). The reason for the curvature of the space is that there is a connection between the shape of the space and its content. That is, according to the theory of relativity, if there is space, there is gravity. It is not clear to me what the connection is with the big bang, which is the point where all space was compressed into one point. It is not clear why you think time can only exist in the presence of matter, and how you arrived at the paradox, or what paradox you think you have found.
Relativity is indeed not valid very close to the singularity. But there could certainly be other gravity theories that would describe gravity up to arbitrary energy (or curvature) scales, or get rid of the gravitational singularity. Isn't it better to continue researching and trying to understand than to raise our hands and say Kaddish for the scientific effort (literally)?
Miracles
That's exactly the point. In Judaism these terms have no meaning because Judaism is not physics. You can call the point any name you want.
Physics is good at calculations, but it must have something to start from. Therefore, when you reach the starting point, it collapses. Judaism does not pretend to explain one point or another. Judaism is not science, it is much more than that. Science today only helps to verify everything that Judaism has known for a long time.
Aviram did ask the question of the questions, and that is what is the space that the point (the fact that it suddenly appeared, why is there also a question...) was in it? Physics will never be able to answer that because there is actually no physics there.
Yaron
What is singularity?
Unequivocally there is. Without a doubt.
Aviram is a smart guy, so he asked here.
It's funny that someone thinks Judaism has an answer. There are statements but no coverage
Aviram
You are a smart guy. Physics has no answer to your question because it actually collapses at the singular point.
Look for a man in Judaism, don't be ashamed.
Aviram,
From what I understood, we are not in a position where we can say that the singular point is matter and in general, it is difficult to say much about the singular point because for that you need a quantum gravitational theory.
Here is a nice link Hawking wrote that may be able to give you more information regarding your question (which is the question).
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of-the-universe.html
Albentazo, is there a situation where you give a slightly more serious answer to Aviram?
ok ok
But on the other hand time can only exist when there is matter and space and the singular point is actually matter and it was in any space and then it comes out because there is time and then also gravity.
And this is such a paradox.
Aviram,
I hope someone more professional than me will answer you but in my opinion relativity can only be valid after the big bang. The Torah collapses at the singular point and yes, space and time are intertwined and time (if I understand correctly) is an emergent phenomenon since according to the theory of relativity the question of what was before the big bang has no meaning. There was no time.
Again, I hope the physicists in the group will give you a more qualified answer
albentezo,
Lawrence Krauss agrees with what you wrote about the no big bang article. He wrote it on his Facebook here:
To all who asked. I have looked at the "No Big Bang" article that has been getting attention in various media sites. It doesn't make sense to me. For example: cosmo constant 'prediction' is simply put in by hand.. getting the 'correct' answer today by choosing the observed value today as input.. and giving the wrong answer at earlier times. As for BB singularity.. again it seems to me that it is a case of knowing what one wants, and inputting it into the model.. certainly can't address the singularity problem without a full quantum theory.
Shmulik,
I always donate to Wikipedia (a very modest amount because I'm poor...) this is actually the only "charity" I donate to. I really think they are doing holy work and join your call for other people to donate as well. There is nothing more important to improve the world than imparting knowledge to all parts of the world. This is Wikipedia's motto and they do it well!
Shmulik
I know, one of my favorites (and I recommend it to those who haven't seen it). Thanks.
Peace
I am a student in the XNUMXth grade in Jerusalem. I happened to read on Wikipedia about Einstein's theory of relativity.
If I understood correctly (not sure...) gravity is a product of a curvature between space and time. My question is, would it be strange to say that gravity is a product of the universe, that is, after the big bang, or has it existed all along with one force or another. Can anyone explain? Thanks. And if possible a link to a lecture on the subject.
Thank you
Friends,
I donated a modest amount to Wikipedia, hope you will too. What would we do without her? Poking around the internet and reading pages in strange fonts like peasants???
albentezo,
thank you for the answer. I learned!
walkie,
Every now and then I bring up the Niall Tyson lecture talking about how many scientists in the past, once they reached the edge of their knowledge, blasted God. He demonstrates how in the past, each genius expanded the knowledge of his predecessor and got rid of the need for God in the newly mapped areas (where he is no longer needed) but always returned to him where the knowledge stopped. Search YouTube for Niall Dagris Tyson and Steven Weinberg. If I attach the YouTube, my father blocks the comment.
Fascinating lecture!
And to see what the (last) lie is:
The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. It argues that invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone.[1] In response to criticism, Hawking has said; "One can't prove that God doesn't exist, but science makes God unnecessary."[2] When pressed on his own religious views by the Channel 4 documentary Genius of Britain, he has clarified that he does not believe in a personal God
2010 is not 1988. Did you get it my frightened friend?
In fact, this is a long-standing tradition that continues even today (and yes, Newton is also part of this tradition). When some people don't know the answer to something, they tell themselves it was God's doing, thus imagining that they have solved the problem, when in doing so they actually ignore the problem, avoid trying to solve it, and promise that they won't solve it in the future either.
At first I planned to answer the two parts of your question separately, and in the end I combined them into one continuous answer. Therefore, the numbering (1.) at the beginning of the response can be ignored.
Shmulik,
1. Change is in a sense continuous and in a sense discrete. What happens is that we have two vectors that interest us - one that defines what it means to move in direction r (distance from the singularity) and another that defines movement on the time axis t. And these vectors have a magnitude (called a norm in mathematical language), and the norm changes continuously. Outside the black hole the norm of the motion vector in time is negative and the norm of the motion vector in space is positive. It may sound strange (negative magnitude) but that in one word is the whole beauty of the theory of relativity - that it uses less standard geometric theories than those studied by Euclid and studied in high school to describe the universe and gets fantastic results (both in the sense of amazing and in the sense of incredibly accurate). These things are well defined mathematically and there is nothing to be afraid of, although you need to study a little to understand them.
The question of whether we must move along a certain axis towards a certain point that we will eventually reach whether we want to or not, or whether we are free to move in both directions of the axis, is determined by the sign of the norm. Therefore, the change in the norm is indeed continuous, but as soon as a positive norm becomes negative, it is a binary change that states that now I no longer have freedom of choice and am obliged to move along this axis towards a certain point.
But to go from positive to negative you have to go through 0 (if the change is continuous, and indeed it is). There is a point where the norm of both vectors is 0 (the so-called null vectors or lightlike vectors). An example of such a vector is the momentum of a light beam - a light beam can move in any direction it wants but it is "stuck" at the speed of light. So at this point it is theoretically possible to move freely both on the axis of space and on the axis of time. This point is actually not a point but a two-dimensional surface (technically, it is a co-dimension 2 surface, and in a simple universe like ours with 4 dimensions - three spatial and one temporal - it comes out of a two-dimensional surface), and is exactly the event horizon of a black hole.
But this is only naively true. There are two problems with movement on this surface that can be explained quite simply. The first concerns that it is a surface with a width of 0 (exactly at a radius of 2GM from the singularity, where M is the mass of the black hole and G is Newton's constant). We know that every particle has a certain size, or in a slightly more precise language - every quantum wave or every quantum field has a certain distribution of positions whose width is not 0 (in relativity quantum theory, a particle can never be placed at an exact point, even at the cost of absolute uncertainty in momentum). Therefore movement on such a surface is not physical. The second problem is even simpler - let's say we are in classical mechanics and we are looking at a particle that has an exact position and size 0, so there is no problem moving it on the surface. It can be easily proven that trajectories on the event horizon are unstable - that is, to stay on the event horizon we need some strong engine to keep us there. Since we do not have an infinite source of energy (and there is none in nature), no particle can ever stay forever on this surface, and at the end of the day you will have to fall an infinitesimal distance from it into the black hole, and from there there is no way back.
to the guy who talks to himself (whatever you call yourself)
You are wrong. If man did not start asking himself questions there would be no religion. Man invented religion out of a lack of knowledge of how to answer questions correctly.
On the other hand - it is permissible, according to the Torah, to lie. Because - without lies, there is no religion.
The first lie is God's of course.
The first sin in the Torah - curiosity.
neutral
Right. Not only him. Newton and many other scientists who shaped reality were also religious people who believed in God. In fact, if it weren't for religion - man wouldn't even start asking himself questions..
And one more thing,
The person who brought Amnon Yitzhak into the picture was someone
By the way, do you know what the sentence that Neutrali wrote reminds me of ("Well? Another Hebrew and logic teacher. Not fooling is just like saying there is a chance. High low irrelevant. Thank you.)"
In the movie dumb and dumber, Jim Carrey tries to start a relationship with someone and asks her about his chances. She answers not low and he asks: What, 1 to 100? And she answers him: more like 1 in a million. Then there is a pause, after which he responds: "So you're telling me there's a chance"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX5jNnDMfxA
I think it's crazy what happens to converts. You want to believe in God, fine. Why are you trying to prove God? Proof contradicts belief. Haven't you read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and the Parable of the Babel Fish?
here:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," said God, "because proof is against faith, and without faith there is no self and nothing." "But," said the man, "a Babylon fish stings you, doesn't it? It is not conceivable that it developed by chance. This proves that you exist, and therefore, according to your own arguments, you do not exist. parable." "Oh, God," says God, "I didn't think of that." And in that place disappears in a cloud of logic.
neutral,
Write in a firm style as much as you want, but you are wrong. Not fooling doesn't mean anything about increasing the odds. I do not rule out the fact that your grandfather murdered Arlozorov. Does the fact that I don't rule it out make it more or less likely that he murdered him?
I don't know the quote about Hawking (can someone give a link?) but it doesn't bother me that you are sure that the way you define God is the same for Hawking or anyone else. I asked for a definition so give a definition to God. What is difficult? Why is it always when entering into such an argument, one side is always not ready to deliver the goods???
You are also wrong that reality rules out the short-lived hypothesis. Nothing can deny her. how exactly? You are aware that there are many religious people who, when asked about dinosaurs and the age of the universe, answer that God (give a definition) created the universe and so on so that they look as if they are old with a beard. Well? What is the difference? I'm just saying we were created a second ago. Well, then I said.
One last thing: give a definition to God. Thanks
You are also a liar because the source I brought is from 2010
neutral
I have no interest in discussing with a stupid person.
Bye
albentezo,
The question does not pertain to the article but a question about something you wrote at the time (in response to Maya, if I'm not mistaken). Black guy, time and space change roles and just like in our world we are guaranteed to reach tomorrow, black guy is guaranteed to reach the beginning of labor. Does this exchange, between time and space, occur gradually? If so, during this exchange, is there a point where we are not guaranteed to make it to tomorrow and the start of labor? Some kind of balance?
Miracles
You bring an article from 88 and Hawking's research as presented by the narrator is from 98 ten years later. So it turns out that Hawking changed his mind because this is precisely the point that he presents a new possibility that the point was there all along and then adds in his voice the matter of the creator. In any case, it seems that there is Go and friends here, what a method to introduce Deti and Rabbi Amnon and Rabbi Zovi to divert the discussion from the main point. So continue with your stupidity Yadvil who is played by some intellectual but in practice it turns out that you are no less than some hot-headed gunslinger who is just waiting for the opportunity to pull out guns and shoot everywhere.
Shmulik
However, spinning around with casual statements is not misleading, it means there is a point chance.
When Hawking uses the word God then he must mean God, the whole world means when he says God. Obviously he has to be bigger than the universe. With a wand without a wand who cares.
Nothing can deny that we were created a second ago, etc. It's a nice philosophy, but reality unfortunately denies it.
Swiss
You are probably right. Also in light of the fact that the most important physicist of the century, the dean of the Cambridge Faculty of Mathematics, says clear things based on research he did, and then suddenly quoting him doesn't mean anything just because his opinion is contrary to the positions of the group here.
And now for the next Someone/Ethan/Neutral/Swiss charm where it will become:
The speaker of the one and only true truth
Well, the transition between the personas is already so clear (Swiss and neutral? Really?) that there are only 2 possibilities: either our chameleon is such a stupid person that he thinks we won't notice that it's the same person with a lot of nicknames (a very unlikely possibility in my opinion), or This is just a troll. That is, not even a religious person who thinks he is really right and his goal is to convince, but only a person whose goal is to annoy.
Anyway, I was here. Good luck later.
Swiss == neutral
It is enough to see that the one who represents God here is one miserable liar who knows nothing about the world.
neutral
A world without God is a world full of demons and spirits. What do you care if they burn in hell? Leave them like that. This is probably what they deserve. You won't convince them with facts. These are a total of 3-4 people (there is a suspicion that they are even the same person) who are not even a mob and their opinion is not important, that is clear to you. So leave them to their poor souls, otherwise you are adding fuel to the fire. You want to see them twisted even more, ask them to disprove the existence of God.
Strong,
(Forgive me, but of all your names, Ethan is the most normal, so I'll use it). The claim "we cannot disprove the existence of A", whether A is God or Buddha or husband or whatever you want, is a claim without scientific value. And this is because it does not contribute anything to our knowledge, understanding or acquaintance with the world. Quite a long time ago, Nissim told you that it is impossible to contradict the existence of fairies (I think they were fairies, maybe it was something else), and his argument and yours are valid. That is, the fact that Hawking said that this or that theory does not contradict the existence of a creator is a claim that *is not based on any research*. The reason you say yes is that you are simply a very, very ignorant person who does not know what scientific research is. This claim is tautologically true a priori, that is, it is not derived from any observation and cannot be influenced by any observation (correct me if I'm wrong: do you think there can be a scientific experiment that proves there is no God? Or you can always say "There is a God but He is omnipotent and For an experiment to come out as if it doesn't exist. Why? I don't know what God's reasons are"?).
But you are right about one thing: I did not bring a scientific paper that shows in a controlled way evidence for the existence of the big bang. So here, I bring you now instead of sending you to Google. We both (and not only us, everyone who reads this correspondence) know that you will not read the article, and that even if you wanted to, you could not. In any case, two links are attached - the first is a short summary of the types of evidence that exist and the second is actually a scientific publication of one of the evidences (in fact, this article earned its author a Nobel Prize - the evidence in question is an accurate measurement of the expansion of the universe in a way that is completely consistent with the Big Bang predictions ). I couldn't really attach scientific articles to all the evidence, simply because there is so much (we have been collecting evidence verifying the Big Bang for more than 50 years, as briefly explained in the first link).
And please, enough with the lies. Enough to change names, enough to say you are an atheist. Everyone here knows you're a liar, just like everyone knows you're stupid. So what's the point?
http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/cosmos/bb_evid
http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/116/3/1009
Shmulik,
You can try asking. I might be able to answer your questions without repeating the calculations of the two guys or anything like that. I mean, if your questions are an explanation of concepts or things like that I can probably answer soon. At worst, I just won't address it and won't answer. nothing happened.
neutral…
Here are some quotes for you - ask Amnon Yitzchak to translate for you into easy Hebrew:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”
"It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going."
In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".
And you will still continue with your stupidity 🙂
albentezo,
Thanks for your answer and good luck with the publication!
I had a few questions about the article, I will defer gratification.
neutral,
This is not true.
Not fooling just means that it does not add or subtract from the possibility of the existence of a spaghetti monster. If there was any chance before the claim, this chance was not appointed in the answer. that's it.
Nothing can negate the claim that God exists. Nothing can negate the claim that we were created a second ago with a memory of everything we supposedly did. Because of this, it is not interesting to talk about him or the young existence hypothesis.
Beyond that, the concept of God is not well defined. I don't understand what they want from me who say God. Only recently the Pope told us that God is not a magician with a wand and I actually thought it was just the opposite.
Neutral, you want to say that there is a chance for God, please define for me the God you are talking about.
Thanks.
Walla? Another teacher of Hebrew and logic. Not fooling, it's just like saying there is a chance that exists. High, low, irrelevant. Thank you.
Neutral, you don't understand that "not fooling" is different from:
"Exists", "thinks it exists", "there is a high chance that it exists"?
If you understand that, then what are you actually trying to say?
If you don't understand this then you must learn Hebrew/logic before you post your words in public.
Thanks
Albanzo, you send the whole country according to what I saw to 25 million sites of studies and then the Dean of the Faculty of Cambridge came with a study that does not rule out the existence of a creator, so you give me a quote? At least the quote according to him is based on a study, so what is his research qualified less than the studies you send the whole country to.
neutral (yes, sure)
By the way, even to the other commenters here you seem retarded...
neutral (yes, sure)
the truth? You seem like a retarded child to me...
Hawking said there is no God, but again, that doesn't fit your position.
Every time some friction between religion and science comes up again, some religious person will always come and quote Hawking or Einstein or Newton or it doesn't matter who, who say that they actually believed in the existence (or did not rule out the possibility of existence) of a creator for the world.
It is simply amazing how religious people (or at least some of them) cannot grasp the idea that science does not have a "high priest" according to which we live our lives...
Or in other words (because it's quite clear that the point will be missed precisely by the people who need to understand it the most) - who the hell cares what Hawking said? To quote him is meaningless (and as Nissim pointed out, usually these are partial or distorted quotes, although not always). Quoting Hawking is no more impressive than quoting Amnon Yitzhak or the cute girl who works at the Starbucks near my house (if anything, less, if only for aesthetic reasons). Want to score points in a discussion with non-believers? Bring proofs and evidence for the existence of one or another god.
Good luck with that, by the way.
Why are you trying to mix me up if I seem like a retarded child to you? The dean of the Faculty of Mathematics in Cambridge, the important physicist of the century, as defined by the narrator, says in his voice, based on a new study no less and no more, with his partner that an expanding universe does not rule out the existence of a creator, so who are you compared to Hawking exactly
neutral (yes, sure)
If Hawking said there is no God - would you accept it? Yes or No?
You probably didn't listen, I listened very carefully to the announcer in the introduction and he said that Hawking and his research partner propose a new theory that the point was there all along and then he plays Hawking the dean of the faculty of mathematics in his voice saying that an expanding universe does not rule out the existence of a creator. Well then he changed his mind. So what Relevant past if there is new research.
neutral (yes, sure)
Nothing deceives the Creator. There is no denying that there is a Santa Claus. So what?
Hawking said that there is no need for a creator to explain the formation of the universe - but that goes against your position, so you won't quote it, will you?
But Stephen Hawking in his voice says that an expanding universe does not rule out the existence of a creator. It only limits the time he did his work. So physics can live with a creator, so why all the war.
Professor Lantz says in a miraculous way.. then he happens to his magician a miracle so what is the difference from the creationists Judaism calls the magician God and the Buddhists Buddha No. What is the war over the years?
Shmulik
Yes, I read the article on slashdot. Very interesting indeed. But you should ask Amnon Yitzhak what he says about it, no? Who understands better than him? Oh right, my two year old grandson understands more…..
Shmulik,
Unfortunately, I did not get to delve into the article you referred to. These days I'm on the verge of publishing a job I've been working on for quite some time and that doesn't leave me much free time for other things. My first impression from a light reading of the article and the article that preceded it, is that it is a model that provides certain results, but its correctness and its connection to our reality is not necessarily trivial. It relies on a quantum correction to the classical equations that results from the replacement of geodesic orbits with quantum orbits from de Broglie-Bohm theory. I'm really not an expert in the field, but to the best of my recollection, the idea of quantum orbits in Bohm's theory is not something very clear and well-defined that suffers from problems at least at the mathematical level. That's one reason I wouldn't blindly trust their results without taking a deep look at what the tradeoff means.
In addition, it is important to note that this is not necessarily a consistent solution of quantum gravity. That is, the replacement of a classical orbit with a purely quantum one, without considering the fluctuations of the metric for example, can certainly prove to be inconsistent. We have to be very careful with semi-classical approximations in which some of the factors are taken as classical and some as quantum, because we must not decide arbitrarily where there is classical behavior and where there is quantum behavior. The approximations have to be made based on some order parameter (like orders in Planck's constant, for example, or corrections for curvature) and no such careful treatment is done here.
Thirdly and lastly, it is a model whose results derive directly from a behavior appropriate to a bosonic condensate, a kind of perfect liquid without spin, which supposedly describes our universe. Descriptions of cosmological systems as fluids are very familiar and accepted in general relativity, but I am personally not convinced that the specific choice of the model by the two researchers is not arbitrary. But as I said - these are all comments and impressions that were created by me before a thorough reading of the article. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future.
Miracles,
It's really strange. Look what they have to do to themselves. Look at what level of brainwashing they have entered: in order to force themselves to be convinced of the correctness of the rabbi's words, they have to completely suppress their sense of criticism, accept YouTube nonsense as a scientific article and lie to themselves that it is true. After all, in life, most of them at least, would not do something similar when it comes to giving medicine to their child. No YouTube clip would have convinced them to take medicine when the doctor forbade them to take the YouTube medicine and instructed them to give their child another medicine.
Only on these topics, Amnon Yitzhak suddenly becomes a king of scientists and a one man meta analysis gang
Did you read the link I gave?
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
Shmulik
Intelligence is not a distinct characteristic of the converts, at least, but those who respond here. Neither does integrity.
That is why they fall into the trap of this corrupt rabbi, whose name it is not necessary to mention.
albentezo,
You were probably right, but why play her as Jekyll and Hyde (I almost wrote Batman and Bruce Wayne...)?
Did you get to look at the link I attached?
Miracles,
In my opinion these are just converts. I already wrote that they have 12 steps in the conversion process, and one of them is to come to this forum, tell everyone that Kdhua is flat and survive. They lack the deep faith that religious people have "from birth" and the poor people must go through the Amnon Yitzchakite Shikonanization.
What always surprises me is that they don't understand that trying to prove God contradicts the idea of believing in God.
I don't understand - all the dos are liars impersonating? Or only those who come here?
Strong
Someone says in a passage that the world is between 6000 years old, based on Jewish tradition. He is openly preaching religion, and please, don't spin it as if there are 2 scientific opinions we are discussing here.
The "opinion" that they did not land on the moon is illegitimate! This conspiracy is a gross lie, and is based on a combination of evil, lies and, forgive me, stupidity.
From what I hear from Someone, religion is also based on evil and stupidity, and again, forgive me, a lot of evil.
This is my opinion, based on countless evidence. Are you denying my right to hold my own opinion?
I would be happy to discuss any evidence for my opinion. I would also like to discuss any evidence in the opinion of Amnon Yitzchak's apprentice.
Shmulik,
There is no point in separating different responses to someone and "Eitan". Do you think it's a coincidence that just as one of them disappeared, the other appeared? That Ethan continued all the discussions conducted by someone on all fronts, and uses exactly the same arguments and holds the same views? that even though he claims to be an atheist, he writes "God"? Or do they even have the same spelling errors?
"Strong",
1. Where did he quote Amnon Yitzchak? First, someone's first mention of Gentry's research was presented as scientific proof that the world is 6000 years old. Note that Gentry does not claim this in the video. Who does claim that? Amnon Yitzchak. Beyond that, someone later continued to claim that it is not possible to draw conclusions from measurements that are carried out today about events in the past. Which is almost word for word what Amnon Yitzchak says in the video. So you remind me, what is it called when Amnon Yitzhak says something and then someone repeats his claims almost word for word? Not a quote?
2. I see that it is impossible to work on you, you understand too well how we measure light from distant stars and how we know the age of the light. And in case you didn't catch the sarcastic tone, I'll put it simply: there are few things in the world more stupid and ridiculous than claiming that a scientific theory or measurement is wrong, without understanding it. I started to write a rather long comment about how we know how old the light that reaches us from distant stars is, how we know how much (if at all) the speed of light changes and how we know not only what the expansion rate of the universe is today but also in the past (have you heard of inflation?), but I decided it was unnecessary. After all, so far you have not addressed at all any factual claim that I have made (including detailed links including references to articles relevant to the error in drawing Gentry's conclusions) and you clearly have no intention of understanding why science says what it says (and we will expand on this later). So there is no point in wasting your time at all. If I'm wrong and you do want to know - all the information is open to you. It's called Google. Successfully.
3. "Nothing from what you said is unequivocal, therefore the whole bang is still a theory and not a fact." Sorry? Have you read evidence for the existence of the big bang? Let's do an experiment. Please go over the evidence and write an explanation for me and for the rest of the forum why the evidence is wrong. After you go through the whole body of evidence and explain to us why it is not true, we will return again to your claim that "none of what you said is unequivocal, therefore the whole bang is still a theory and not a fact". Or maybe you should actually start by learning what is a theory and what is a fact. Maybe I'm just judging you negatively, maybe you even meant that the big bang is a theory in the scientific sense, just like gravity is a theory, or electricity is a theory, or antibiotics is a theory. If that's what you meant - my apologies. You're right. The Big Bang is indeed a theory (a theory rich in evidence whose predictions are verified by experiment, such as gravity, electricity, etc.).
4. Donald DeYoung is not a Christian preacher? really? So the clergy credential he has from Grace Seminary is what, just a joke? The fact that he divides his time between the university where he works and teaching Christianity to children is because he is actually not religious at all? What does the fact that a Google search does not find a single peer-reviewed publication of his in a well-known monthly mean? Or in the world's largest database for publications in physics (arXiv, which we already mentioned when we told that Gentry sued him and lost) there is no record of any of his publications ever? But he has a lot of publications in religious monthly devoted to creationism only? who is the president of the creation research society and a spokesman for answers in genesis, two extreme religious organizations that oppose any scientific idea that does not fit a *literal* interpretation of the Bible and the New Testament and that are funded by evangelicals? And what about the fact that what you brought is a link to Amazon (!!!) where his book is sold? Wait, if someone writes a book then it's the truth? Don't you see a healthy level of hypocrisy in that you on the one hand demand that those who oppose your views produce scientific publications, but your evidence is the fact that he wrote a book that can be bought on Amazon? A book whose publisher is Master Books, a publishing house that publishes only books that claim the correctness of the Christian account of creation? How lucky that you thought carefully about what you were saying before you wrote the things...
5. "Why is the point as proposed by Hawking that it was there all along that it is okay and God is not"? simple. Evidence. Except that I'm willing to bet my left lung that you have no idea what a singular point means (and by the way, Hawking has nothing to do with the Big Bang model or the singular point. He worked on singular points and cosseted structures of spaces in the context of black holes, which is something else entirely) , the answer is simple: one of them is a scientific theory that has evidence that supports it and predictions that are verified in the laboratory, and the other is a fantasy that some aspects of it cannot be proven, and other aspects are completely absurd. If you want to know what makes the idea of a big bang and a singular point a valid and plausible scientific theory (and everyone knows you don't want to know, including yourself), then you are invited to take an interest in the evidence for the big bang. I included in one of the previous comments a link to Google, where there are 28 million websites that you can choose to read.
6. Who said anything about freedom of speech? Did someone try to remove you from the site or shut you up? Say what you want. Just don't be surprised that when you talk nonsense people will burst out laughing and try (unsuccessfully) to explain to you why the things you say are a night of mistakes and a display of extreme ignorance (which is at best if we assume that there is no lie here, that is, that you really believe that there is no difference between a big bang and thousands ).
7. First of all, my father did not tell me that the world itself was created by an explosion. That's because the Big Bang Theory doesn't say that at all. But why waste time, you don't even know what the big bang theory says, don't want to know, and never will. In fact, the level of intelligence, curiosity and research ability you demonstrate here is strong evidence that even if you wanted to know, you probably wouldn't understand.
Second, my father also did not tell me the correct description of the Big Bang theory. I don't think it's true because of something someone told me, father or mother or uncle or teacher. I know this because I myself studied it, made calculations, performed experiments, compared it to reality, tested other theories, and saw with my own eyes the proofs and evidence (observational and theoretical) of its correctness.
In conclusion, even if I were not a physicist and did not know all the evidence myself, there is still a fundamental difference. Even for a person without a scientific education, there is a profound difference between: a) an idea that other people tested for in a laboratory, tested observations, tested predictions, and all the tests turned out to be correct, and all attempts to disprove it were false, and b) something someone once said. I mean, you also put your trust in something that you haven't checked yourself, there is a night and day difference between trusting in something that *someone* has checked, and something that is pure faith and by its definition you cannot check whether it is true or not. I know you don't understand the difference between an idea supported by evidence, evidence, and experiments, and something your rabbi said is the truth, but still - try to understand.
Speaking of a young man,
http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
And here is the link to the scientific article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.3093
You see Eitan, that's all I ask. Link.
Strong,
Commentary or not, he gets confused when he asks what the connection is with religious belief and you agreed with me that there is a close connection between the two when you brought in Zehava Galon and her claim on her behalf that she would have demanded not to teach Torah studies. Blackmail for your mind reading ability, by the way.
In addition, he didn't just ask for the same thing as the moon claim and he did take a stand. He stated, in his first foray into this thread, the following:
"There are not a single coincidences. The mufti order of the universe speaks for itself. Where there is order there is order. "
Later, he brought "scientific research" in the form of a YouTube clip starring Amnon Yitzchak on which he relies that the world is 6000 years old.
At the end Eitan the atheist who is fascinated by the openness emerges. What openness and what shoes??? Did you read the thread that you decided was not taking a position? When he writes that where there is order there is order, in your opinion this is not establishing a position? So, what is position determination?
someone,
All I ask of you is a link to a scientific article that supports the claim of a young DNA. Should be simple, right?
Shmulik
This is your personal interpretation of his words. I have not seen such.
He didn't say teach anything! But he did say that the claim of the elves also deserves a stage just like a super conspiracy
the moon
He didn't take a position at all, he started from a TV program and addressed the content of what was said there, neither a rabbi nor shoes, and when I hear what is said there as an atheist, I also do not accept these answers, they show a complete lack of knowledge in my opinion. It is true that I also do not accept the religious explanation, but of course Not casual answers that I told to be created or the smart bricks or platitudes that cannot be defined. And in the end there is no solution either.
Strong,
Thanks for agreeing with my point. In any case, what I didn't like in his answer is the hidden claim that evolution is another opinion and yes, one could argue that Nazism should be taught as a variety of opinions.
Look, what did I even ask someone for? Bring a link to a scientific article that supports what he claims. What is difficult?
Albandazo
And that your father told you that the universe was created by itself from an explosion and did not confuse you, is that okay?
Someone
I'm an atheist too, but you're great, I loved your open approach Shapo
Nissim, you don't stop asking him all the time how do you know that this is true or not true about the Torah, I have not seen him write that it is true or not anywhere. He wrote explicitly that you are dragging me into religion and then he brought the Jewish concept as it is and wrote to you explicitly that a person who does not believe is impossible argue with him. And that's a fact!
Shmulik
If you were to ask Zehava Galon if Torah should be taught in schools, the answer would be clear. No!
And then this answer is also probably related to the current to which it belongs.
At least Minister Piron is open to hearing another opinion and that's fine.
Albanzo
Where do you see that he quoted from Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak
He specifically wrote, ignore the rabbi, refer to what is in the video, that's all.
The fact that science measures light from a star and today determines its age is exactly the point that he claims that the universe initially expanded faster and exactly what Nissim initially answered that the moon initially moved away faster and then you measure today and conclude about billions.
Nothing from what you said is unequivocal therefore the whole bang is still a theory and not a fact.
http://www.amazon.com/Thousands-not-Billions-Challenging-Questioning/dp/0890514410
And there is also this opinion and Reverend De Jong is neither a Christian nor a Jewish preacher
Why is the point as Hawking suggests that it was there all along that it is okay and God is not?
The conspiracy on the moon was also mentioned on the website and most of the public does not agree with it, but it is freedom of speech to bring another opinion as well and you can argue with it and refute it.
Maya
Cute 🙂
I wrote some links that are waiting - look for Tim Minchin - the good book, and the episode of Mr. Deity called
Mr. Deity and the Days
Maya
Cute 🙂
I suggest you watch episodes of Mr. Diety, for example – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6IH2daZDnw
and especially - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw9HkazL1eE
Tim Minchin of course - especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
Explains exactly why the Torah is right 🙂
How are you talking for several comments about what is more reliable, scientific evidence or Torah that passes from father to son and no one has yet brought this link?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LW06dav7KA
If there are videos on YouTube, at least they should be interesting and entertaining
Someone
How do you know that what is written in the Torah is true? You say that things are passed down from father to son for thousands of years - on what basis do you know this?
You start from the assumption that God is omnipotent - but then you put limitations on him 🙂 You say that he must exist, always... Have you noticed this gap in your faith? Your God is not omnipotent - according to your determination!!
I see what you mean that God can create the world in whatever state he wants. By the same token - it could have been created 123 years ago in exactly the same way. It's possible that whoever did it was the horrible Spaghetti Monster - that your god created to replace him and then retired to the Caribbean.
Silly story, right? But, isn't it better to believe that all the horrors in the Torah really weren't read and that it's just stories meant to educate people? Think - if the world is only 123 years old then - there would be much less atrocities, and this does not contradict in any way what you yourself believe in. not better?
1. So now the correctness of a thing is measured by whether it changes or not? I mean, if I now decide that the moon is made of cheese, and I don't change my mind for 3000 years, then the moon is really made of cheese?
2. The man's name is *Hawking* (there's nothing that shows you know what you're talking about like the fact that you don't even know what the working souls are called, let alone what the relevant science says or why), and who cares if he changed his mind. You see, unlike your rabbi, Hawking no one believes that Hawking is some kind of magician that everything he says comes true. He is just a man, and his opinion is not important at all. What is important are the scientific discoveries he revealed. Which brings us to the next point?
3. "What cannot be said about the big bang and collisions etc. which are based on theories and no proven evidence". Please, please, tell me you're kidding. Science, which is based solely on observational evidence, doesn't catch your eye, but what your father told you when you were little that there was a wizard in the sky and that he ordered you to cut the bulbul, is that believable? This is the stage where I begin to hope with all my heart that you are a troll, because the very thought that there are real people with such opinions is depressing.
4. You have already received a link to a full explanation regarding Gentry's error, including references and scientific citations from articles (his error is not in the existence of the discolorations, which do exist, but in drawing the conclusions that say why they are there and how coal is formed). But you continue to ignore and ask us to bring an article that refutes his measurements. Obviously, this is what you will do, because if you stop and use your head, you will have to admit that Gentry's claim, which in itself does not throw anything and a half into the age of Kadaha as you claimed (I remind you that in your first response you wrote "scientific research proving that the world is 6000 years old") , is wrong, and as a result you too were just talking nonsense. Why did you talk nonsense? Because you blindly quoted a lot that was talking nonsense. And that is no longer possible. A Rabbi in Israel (who knows less science than an average XNUMXth grader) will talk nonsense?! God forbid.
5. Finally, why big bang yes and thousands not? Because the Big Bang has a tremendous amount of observational evidence, and as a scientific theory it produces predictions that are verified in the laboratory (astronomically and not proactively, but still). When you have observational evidence for the existence of thousands, and a scientific theory predicting the existence of thousands whose predictions are tested in the laboratory and verified, then ask this question again.
And of course you have no idea what the evidence is for the existence of the Big Bang, because Amnon Yitzchak never made a video entitled "Here are the mountains of observational evidence for the existence of the Big Bang that the converts do not want you to know because they prefer you to be ignorant and so it will be easier to sell you lies." So here it is, especially for you:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evidence+for+big+bang
someone,
Obviously it's related but you don't see it. OK.
I asked for a link to an article that supports your claim. Can you provide one? Thanks
Shmulik
So what do you want to say, what's the connection?
Gentry convinced the materials and coal in the name of religion to behave as he wished? He made a measurement with acceptable materials, rather bring an article that denies or refutes his measurement and his ambition is great.
And that's exactly what I'm saying, leave religion, leave preaching. Put both opinions, methods, bring theoretical proofs here and there
Equally equal. Why is the bang yes and thousands not?
Miracles
For my part, call the Yossi manufacturer for the matter.
The Torah is not a science book.
You take me in the direction of religion all the time but there is no point in arguing with a person who does not believe in God.
The Jewish concept begins with the fact that God is almighty and not limited. So there is no possibility that someone created him because then he is limited and he is not almighty.
Second, the Jewish view says that the world was created in its stature and in its order. That is, just as the first man was created as a 20-year-old and not a baby. So the animals were also created mature and so were the trees and plants. And so is the earth and the universe that were created already ancient because God is omnipotent and does not need to wait for what he created to go. and will develop. So there is no contradiction to the age of the trees or the universe or the earth.
Now a person who does not believe in God does not accept this and then anyway there is no point in arguing with him and explaining to him.
The Americans are celebrating 239 years of independence. None of the Americans today was in this position, but he received from his ancestors year after year who saw the declaration of independence with their own eyes and passed it on to this day.
So did the Jewish people who saw with their own eyes the giving of the Torah that was given by God 3300 years ago and passed down from year to year from generation to generation until this day. The Torah has not changed even once, this is a fact! Because the Jewish faith holds that God foresees and knows the past, present and future, and in any case He has given in the Torah all the answers and laws for the future as well.
What cannot be said about the big bang and collisions etc. which are based on theories and no proven evidence. Hawkins himself changed his mind a number of times and physics as it is today does not give any solution to what was before as Professor Aaronov admits.
someone,
What is still not clear is your obfuscation in the form of the question: "What does it have to do with the stream to which he belongs". Do you think it's a coincidence?
Before the previous elections, I asked Shay Piron on Facebook if he accepts evolution and he answered me (!) that because of his faith, of course, he does not accept evolution (but thinks it should be taught because it is important to teach a variety of opinions.) Do you think it is a coincidence that this was his answer?
And now suddenly I realize that the situation is even worse than I thought... I thought you were referring to Gentry's research regarding discoloration resulting from radioactive interactions, and now I realize that you are even referring to the fact that he takes a 10000-year-old piece of coal, and a piece of wood that he burned at home, and says "Look! Same!". This is, of course, a statement that makes no sense at all, because no one lives by the eye. And regarding the appearance of the discolorations and their connection to the rapid formation of coal, I will wait until you read the scientific explanation for this, which I included in my first response.
someone,
I would love to receive a link to some study that supports your claim. Not YouTube, it's not a study, but a link to an article/study, etc.
Thanks
"Don't screw up what Gentry did"?
Say, are you serious? What I wrote is that Gentry *doesn't* show that DHA is thousands of years old, but only claims that coal can be formed quickly. Where exactly is there a twist here?
Besides, it's a shame you don't even try to read and listen to the things you blindly quote. A short search on Google would show you that Gentry does claim (not in the specific video you brought, but in general) that the stories of creation and the flood are true and that the Earth is a few thousand years old (although I have not addressed this so far, so it is not clear on what basis you claim that I have misrepresented his words). In fact, he even sued Cornell University's arXiv site (the world's largest database of articles in the field of physics, at least) for deleting ten of his articles from the database that claim that the entire universe is only a few thousand years old and not just the EDA. Of course, the articles were deleted because they had religious and non-scientific content, and he lost the lawsuit he filed against them. But all of this is unrelated, just amusing so that you know who you are dealing with and who you are quoting - a religious fanatic who decided from childhood what the answers to the questions were, and now his scientific efforts are only to strengthen the conclusions he has already drawn.
Finally, we will address the nonsense you quoted from the mouth of Amnon Yitzhak regarding our inability to extrapolate. So can you back up this claim with evidence? And no, "Amnon Yitzchak said" this is not evidence. There are very many things that we definitely *do* know how they behaved in the past (for example, we constantly receive radiation from distant stars from which we can read the spectrum of most of the substances we know in nature. Because this radiation is old, that is, it arrived only now but was emitted some time ago which depends on the star's distance from us, so we actually have excellent knowledge about the tuning of the fundamental spectrum of substances in nature as a function of time). Although there are also things that we cannot disprove the claim that they have changed, but these are not scientific claims. True, I cannot disprove the possibility that 3000 years ago a great magic happened and water suddenly became blue (before that it was yellow-green). But there is no evidence for this claim, and moreover - such a spontaneous change goes against everything we know about the behavior of substances in nature (we understand very well why water has this or that color and what affects it). That is, this claim is irrefutable, but it is in the nature of "magic", and therefore worthless.
But why do I have the feeling that all this explanation is wasted on you..?
Someone
You wrote "Scientific god, who was here 100000 years ago?" - Beyond the speech level of a 5-year-old child, who was here 6000 years ago?
You can't bring the Torah to prove the correctness of the Torah, can you? So what is your proof?
Albandazo
Gantry didn't say that the earth is between thousands of years, that's exactly the point, you compare coal against coal that dates back 140 thousand years, so don't distort what Gantry did.
What is the connection to the stream to which he belongs is unclear.
He did not preach in the name of religion but showed pure scientific measurement
Someone
Too bad you don't try to read the article you were directed to. Tree dating is done according to annual rings. Every additional year one ring. You can take any tree trunk and see it. These rings are very noticeable in trees growing in cold areas because their growth rate is different between winter and summer. Please - do not respond without reading the article.
You wrote "No plane, no car, no watch is created by itself out of nothing. It is necessary for someone to create it. So is the universe that testifies to its maker!"
— If this assumption is true then there must also be someone who created God, and another someone who created this someone.
— To assert such an assumption, you must explain why it is true, because you cannot test for everything in the universe.
And speaking of - then the same God you believe in also created a terrible tumor in the brain of a newly born baby girl. Or is this rule only true when it's convenient for you?
Dear Gentlemen.
In response to the age of the trees, it is simply that the growth rate of everything from humans to plants is not equal in its first years to its later years. So any current measurement does not teach anything about the past. No refutation of the 6000 of the Torah if you already mentioned the Torah.
The age of the universe as it is, the development of the universe in the beginning was faster, like everything that develops, you take a current measurement in years and draw conclusions of billions from it. Sad joke. Alak scientific who was here 100000 years ago? who can come and tell me a theory and stories of billions. So what do you tell me about studies and considered journals, after all, this is exactly the method there as well. Take the rate of expansion today and calculate back in billions as if the rate had been constant all along.
You choose to ignore the fact that Gantry did not come up with a theory, he took a sample from a tree that had been in the ground for no more than decades in a mine in Utah and turned into coal just like the other two that date back in the millions and a drop and a miracle a result of thousands was obtained.
Regarding the age of the earth or the universe there are two opinions of thousands and of billions not millions of opinions and not shoes.
On this page alone, 4 opinions about the formation of the moon are presented, so it turns out that it is not difficult to present some methods or opinions of the question if you want....
No plane, no car, and no watch is created by itself out of nothing. Someone must have created it. So is the universe that testifies to its maker!
Peace,
Just a few notes.
1. Let's start by drawing attention to the fact that this is a straw man argument, which unfortunately succeeded. I mean, everyone here is so busy arguing about the validity of the claims that they forgot to point out that all it is about is *dating the age of a piece of coal*. It's not about age, it's not about cosmology. All of Gentry's claims, whether true or false (and we'll get to that later), relate to the age of pieces of coal and not even any piece of coal, but those in which radioactive discoloration rings can be found.
2. Robert Gentry may not be Jewish, but he is a pretty notorious religious fanatic. someone, do you think the Jews are the only ones whose religion says the world is a few thousand years old? And you think Jewish brainwashers are the only ones who will distort scientific results to fit their world view?
3. Regarding the "letter of appreciation" - it is nothing more than a letter sent by one person to another. If I now publish a study that says there is an ocean of molten gold hiding near my house somewhere on the east coast, and then Nissim sends me a letter citing my study and saying that the entire scientific community is shocked by it, does that mean my publication is true? It is difficult to explain how pathetic is the attempt to depend on the fact that this or that person wrote a letter in which he said "You are right and the scientific community has no answer".
4. The scientific community actually has an answer to the claim regarding the rapid formation of coal (again, we emphasize that this is all that Gentry supposedly shows here). An example of a summary of the explanation,
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
5. KDA is not made of coal. How the claim that coal can be formed rapidly under certain conditions refutes other evidence that is not related to it at all (we will not list here the multitude of evidences from which scientists deduce the age of the Earth, we will just note that none of them is based on the time it takes for wood to turn into coal).
By the way, it's funny that you say bring both opinions when you are so busy presenting here one side that favors what you want to be true, without doing a basic search and looking equally at the things that present a "second opinion" (in your opinion) and refute it.
Someone
"Bring both opinions and each person will connect to what seems most true to him"
It doesn't work that way. The truth is not determined based on which opinion you agree with the most.
There are many more than the two opinions you imagine there are, there are millions of opinions (and even more). If you pick a topic and try to hear all the opinions in the world about it you will spend your whole life hearing different opinions of people on that topic.
The question is not which opinion suits you and you connect with it, but which opinion is supported by evidence in the real world.
someone,
A YouTube clip is not a scientific study. Bringing a link to YouTube again does not serve this discussion. Bring a link to the scientific research, thanks.
Do you know how to bring scientific research right? Regarded Monthly, Arvix, Pubmed, etc.
Someone
Relax a bit 🙂 No one is willing to accept a YouTube video as proof of anything, so spare it from us.
at your request - https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/4172/3597
Now, if you accept this study, which proves without a doubt that the earth is at least 12,460 years old, then we will continue, and with the help of countless studies, we will prove that the earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old.
On the other hand – one study that contradicts your 6000 years is enough to overturn your faith, isn't it? After all, you expect a video on YouTube by a Christian preacher to convince us...
By the way - if you do not accept the study then you will have to explain - from the study itself - the reason why you do not accept it. This study has 20 references to previous studies, so good luck with that.
Please keep the form of speech, and don't get angry 🙂
Proof The Earth Is Young and Noah's Flood: http://youtu.be/5bTLuyCd9G8
What are you confusing me about the flood and Noah's ark and Rabbi Amnon Yitzchak I asked you what you believe in? Who cares. The link above is not for much. And it exists and it does not agree with the opinion of the billions. So open a page here on the science website and give a platform for another opinion and attack Anatha as much as you can, including what you wrote from their point of view.
The point is, there is an opinion that you believe in, and there is another opinion that you disagree with, and that's perfectly fine. But Rabak will bring both opinions and each person will connect to what he sees as the most true, regardless of Torah, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist religion.
12000 years Shapo is also far from 4.5 billion, but it's perfectly fine, bring that too, no problem.
What does it have to do with what I believe or what you believe on my part, believe in Ambes, but bring your words openly and everyone will confront you according to their own understanding. Including attacking Gantry and showing him in his nakedness rather.
someone,
A YouTube clip is not a scientific study. Bring a link to the scientific research.
Thanks.
Someone
"Respected scientists"??? Is Robert Gentry a respected scientist in your eyes? The man came up with a theory that is not based on the evidence, and the theory has been disproved, and the truth is quite contemptible. The man is a Protestant preacher, and it is not clear to me how Amnon Yitzchak (who is a conduit in the SSC who transfers your money to his BMW, with the help of lies), uses him to achieve his goals. Because - if you believe in Robert Gentry then you believe in Jesus as the Messiah. It's really strange to me.
What do you say about the fact that the history of trees proves, without any doubt, that the world has existed for about 12,000 years? How do you deal with one piece of evidence that destroys the entire Torah?
And in any case - I will ask again - do you believe in the story of the flood?
If the respected scientists in the video are lying it is not clear what the evaluation letter they received was about.
Second, they physically proved it, photographed and documented, including the letter regarding the thundering silence of the world of science is on display.
It is precisely those who ignore or are unwilling to hear the other side who are living a lie.
I brought both opinions. I have no problem listening and hearing the opposite.
Someone
I take it you believe in the story of Noah's Ark?
someone
This is not scientific research, scientific research is not an edited YouTube clip. What makes you think this is scientific research? If this is what convinces you, it is only because you have given up your sense of criticism, because it is convenient for you and it is anti-scientific.
By the way, not that it will convince you, but one scientific study is not worth too much. A scientific study that is often cited, which leads to additional studies that deepen the knowledge of the relevant subject, which eventually ends up in the textbooks, is interesting. Do you have one of these on the internet?
Someone
What exactly are you doing on the science site? You don't want to learn and you don't want to know. You live in a world of lies and good for you.
What to do there are non-Jewish scientists important to emphasize! who think differently and even get an appreciation for it and prove it with physical scientific means not theories! as you see in the video. But their voice was not heard.
It is appropriate that the editor of the website, which is open to opinions and reactions as is customary in a democracy, should also give a platform on his website to the studies and opinions of other scientists who do not go with the mainstream. And everyone will be chosen as they wish.
Amnon Yitzchak is the conduit to get you to speak because no one else will and it is clear why. The research is of gentiles in general so concentrate mainly. Ignore the rabbi ignore religion. Concentrate among them
This,
Amnon Yitzhak is a scientific study. We lived to hear it
If this is a scientific study, here's another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USH22tt162c
By the way, the responses are laid out in front of you. In none of them did I claim to know everything. I brought sources as shown on TV. I did not edit, I did not misrepresent.
Scientific research proving that the world is 6000 years old: http://youtu.be/NDQmrdTfdss
It is for the purpose of the title that the age of the moon is 4.5 billion years a little younger than the earth.
You won't see that anywhere, it's also clear why.
By the way the people you will see are not Jewish nor are they suspected of being close to Judaism.
I answered an answer that parallels in its wisdom what was said by the physicists and the one who understands will understand.
You're an educated person, you've probably learned a lot, I guess. Try Judaism too, without commitments, without prejudices. Ask hard if you don't get answers, then take a breath and continue on your way, man.
Physicists, and the rest of the scientists, do not claim to know everything. on the contrary.
You are the one who claims that everything is known. I would appreciate a polite answer.
I didn't expect a smart response.
Ask physicists from the academic program, they are sure to have an answer.
Maybe because the whites got confused?
Or she didn't tell him exact things.
Or maybe the platitudes that cannot be defined...
Yaron, Someone
If you know that the world is in order - then explain something to me in my work: a 5-day-old baby girl with a brain tumor that takes up more than a third of her head volume.
If you don't know how to explain it then you are not telling the truth.
Waiting for your learned answer.
And everything that adds subtracts...
And there is also a sequel
http://youtu.be/HGt5BVhfpak
There are no coincidences, even one. The mufti order of the universe speaks for itself. Where there is order, there is order. Check at home in the yard at work. An explosion only creates a mess.
To hear this discussion and not to believe A said to Ld Levitzer Z said to L and she closed with T...
Plaques that cannot be defined...
Or the smart whites... who know each other...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2rKycTp4wA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGt5BVhfpak
Yaron
How many mickeys is not too much for you? Or are you just talking because it's hard for you and doesn't fit your prejudices?
Too many coincidences. The whole theory of the big bang is based on coincidences and so are all the other theories such as the formation of the moon and more. Physics really has no answers.
Yaron
The explanation is simple - the rate of the moon's receding has changed over the years.
Correction to the question 171000 km
Peace
If the moon is indeed 4.5 billion years old, then how come it is only 384000 km away from the earth.
After all, every year the moon moves 3.8 cm away from the earth, then it should have been 17000000 km away from the earth today, and this is not reality.
The moon orbits the earth