The expansion of our universe

This is draft #2 I've written. Tell me what you think and any information you have may be helpful.

This paper has less math and more explanation, but of course it has my equation :D I've toned down on the Greek and used the letters we use today.


It is widely accepted that the universe began at a single point of creation, and the Big Bang is accepted to be the moment of creation. But what is the Big Bang? The Big Bang is the point where the universe expanded from nothing. This point of nothing is a singularity, where it has a fixed mass with zero volume. Because a singularity has no volume a singularity must have infinite density. This can be modeled by the equation m/0=∞ (D=m/v). It is believed that the mass of this singularity is all of the matter in our universe. The term used to describe this is known as the Super Atom. However, at one point, this singularity (the Super Atom) expanded from a point to just a few planck lengths across (what caused the singularity to expand is unknown at this point.) The universe continued to expand into the universe we have today. The expansion can be represented as V=β^δ, where V is the volume of our universe, β is the initial volume of expansion, and δ is the rate of expansion.

Normally this equation would be left how it is. However, it takes energy to make something- anything- expand. This means that energy must be factored into the equation. It is also well known that if the universe?s volume doubles then the temperature is halved, and because heat is a measure of energy, the energy is dispersed throughout the universe which means expansion will slow down as the universe expands (meaning there is a the same amount of energy in the universe but it is spread thin.) There is yet another limiting factor- gravity. The energy in the universe is finite, and because the concentration of energy thins out, this means gravity will take its toll. Anything with gravity has an escape velocity which means one must travel at a certain velocity to escape gravity?s effects (in this case expand against gravity.) Gravity will slow down anything attempting to escape, and there will be a certain point in which it will fall back to the source of gravity if a certain amount of energy is no longer being supplied. Since energy is always pushing out against the boundaries of our universe and gravity is always pulling the boundaries towards itself, it is safe to say that there will come a point where the energy of our universe will stop expanding due to gravity, and gravity will not pull the universe inward because of energy pushing against the edges of the universe. It will become a stalemate in time.

Because of recent findings, some experts believe that the universe's rate of expansion is increasing rather than decreasing (galaxies moving away from each other were moving away faster than expected.) They believe that the reason for this is dark energy that has a negative charge, and they also believe that it has anti-gravity (caused by negative pressure, which is believed to be a property of dark energy) effects because of it, explaining their findings. There is one problem with this. The universe started as an atom. Atoms in their natural state have a neutral charge, and only outside effects can change the charge. If energy has a positive charge and dark energy has a negative charge they should negate each other, resulting in a universe with a charge of zero. One can increase the size of the universe all they want and will only get an energy charge of zero. In fact, one can double the amount of energy and remain with a neutral charge. This removes the theory that dark energy is increasing the expansion of the universe because positive energy will balance out negative energy.

The expansion of the universe must have an equation, as anything must have when something increases. Normally, V=β^δ would be enough to model this. However, due to the effects of gravity and dispersal of energy, it must be broken down further to factor in the slowing of growth. The equation V=β^(ε/σ), where ε is the energy in the universe and σ are the factors limiting expansion. After much thought combined with trial and error, σ isn?t enough. σ must be V/(εg). V/ε models the dispersal of energy throughout the universe (I'm not entirely sure if this is the correct model and I would like help in refining it.) V/g is the effect of gravity on the universe (normally it would be V(g), but I prefer that gravity be represented by a whole number) expanding. Thanks to the basic rules of math, V/ε and V/g can be modeled by V/εg. Our equation is now V=β^[ε/(V/(εg))].

We have now figured out the three spatial dimensions of our universe. But what about time? The solution to this is V=β^([ε/(V/(εg))]^γ). There is one problem, however. γ is time, and although I believe it is in the correct place (I would like a second opinion), γ cannot be a specific unit of time because it will drastically affect the equation. If γ is five it will not make a difference if the unit of measure is in years or seconds. Other limits on the equation are γ>0, ε>0, g>0, and V≤εg. It is obvious why time cannot be zero. If time is zero then the expansion rate will be 1 and the universe will not expand. If there is no energy in the universe then the universe will not expand (which is why the expansion model is ε/(V/(εg)); if energy were any operation besides division then you would result with infinite expansion.) Gravity, for obvious reasons, cannot be zero. The expansion rate of the universe will become infinite and result in a rip in the fabric of space time. The reason V≤εg is because if V>εg, then V will contract, and because it contracts, the energy will be multiplied and will increase the rate of expansion which will make V expand again. This process would be a circle and have the same effect of V=(εg). As stated earlier, it will be a stalemate.

The main issue with the equation is the conversion of mass to energy. V/(εg) will be fine due to multiplication, but the expansion will be affected because ε/(V/(εg)). Aside from a few issues, the model of the expansion of the universe is almost complete. With a little more thought and refinement the equation will be perfected.

You see, it's the whole wall of text thing that usually prevents threads like these thriving in OT. That and the fact most of us don't have an in-depth knowledge of physics.

I secretly hoped that the readers of this thread would have the intelligence required to simply read informaton, but I guess I was execting too much.

If you don't want to be nice the exit is that way -->

I did read it and in fact I understood it this time. The only thing is, I didn't have anything constructive to help refine your equation. So instead, I commented on the thread itself.

If a thread is positive and you decide to be negative, what do you think you'll get...?

I will refrain from posting after this due to the derailing nature of this pithy squabble.

All I'm saying is don't imply I can't read information. Just because astro physics is not my forte does not mean I am cerebrally challenged in any way, shape or form. I merely made an observation.

no comment...

^For the arguing, I agree there.

And Oss, you forget one of Newton's Laws. A reaction is always met with by an equal and opposite reaction.

If something can actually get a singularity with infinite density (that has obviously been there since the "beginning" for lack of a better term, with no change at all) to suddenly explode (in the strictest definition of the word), then we obviously have a ridiculously powerful force here to speculate about.


I won't go any farther, because that will incite a religious discussion, and I don't really want to get inracted over that.

I heard God has the powah to do anything.

All I can really say is nice thread. It's very interesting.
I can't help you with the equations, though. lol

+rep for your thoughts & wisdom :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jurnis

^For the arguing, I agree there.

And Oss, you forget one of Newton's Laws. A reaction is always met with by an equal and opposite reaction.

If something can actually get a singularity with infinite density (that has obviously been there since the "beginning" for lack of a better term, with no change at all) to suddenly explode (in the strictest definition of the word), then we obviously have a ridiculously powerful force here to speculate about.


I won't go any farther, because that will incite a religious discussion, and I don't really want to get inracted over that.

---

Newton's laws only affect the matter in our universe. Nothing beyond the edge of our universe can ever be experienced by us, so who is to say there is anything there at all? Anything not possible is negligable. The result of the explosion is the expansion we have today. The opposite reaction, provided something outside our universe exists and has the same laws of physics as we do, would be whatever is outside of us losing empty space.

Think of it like a balloon- it's expanding and anything inside the balloon will see that it is expanding, but it will not be able to see what lays beyond the boundaries. We, however, can see that the expansion of the balloon is taking up our space. The reaction of a force is the expansion of the balloon, and the opposite reaction would be the balloon taking up our space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by o0miza0o

All I can really say is nice thread. It's very interesting.
I can't help you with the equations, though. lol

+rep for your thoughts & wisdom :)

---

Yay :D

dude the univrs is always expanding becaus explosions are going on so it is making bigger and bigger territory

What the I don't even...

∞=M/0.

Using this for the singularity seems fundamentally flawed, other than dividing by zero it also implies that

M = ∞ x 0
0 = ∞ x M

are true statements.

So singularities have no mass, therefore no density, forcing the original equation to be false.


Reposting this from last thread since you never answered it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pialpha

∞=M/0.

Using this for the singularity seems fundamentally flawed, other than dividing by zero it also implies that

M = ∞ x 0
0 = ∞ x M

are true statements.

So singularities have no mass, therefore no density, forcing the original equation to be false.


Reposting this from last thread since you never answered it.

---

No, they are not true statements. Any physicist will tell you that a black hole comes to a point of singularity. The mass defines the event horizon, as you know. Just use logic- how can density affect mass? However, let's talk about math (since you brought it up from a mathematical point of view.)

Infinity is everything and nothing at the same time. If you multiply or divide by infinity you are left with...infinity- everything and nothing. This applies to every number no matter how hard you look at it, including zero.

As you may know, funny things happen when you divide by zero. This spills over into the real world with black holes.

Are they possible mathematically? No.

Are they there? Yes.


You make good points, but some things are simply unexplainable and must be left as scientific phenomina (like what I said about black holes.)

Hol on... you are mixing up your own terminology all over the place. Applying arbitrary labels to some concepts doesn't mean you can suddenly apply, say, electromagnetic theory to dark matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

It is believed that the mass of this singularity is all of the matter in our universe. The term used to describe this is known as the Super Atom. However, at one point, this singularity (the Super Atom) expanded from a point to just a few planck lengths across...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

...There is one problem with this. The universe started as an atom. Atoms in their natural state have a neutral charge, and only outside effects can change the charge.

---

Nowhere did you prove that the "super atom" is actually a single atom. In fact, logic would dictate that, despite being packed in the space normally reserved for one atom, it is still however many of them that exist. (Well, that or some strange amalgam of energy, that's entirely possible, but at any rate, that means using properties of atoms makes even less sense.) Therefore, you can't apply anything relating to a single atom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

...If energy has a positive charge and dark energy has a negative charge they should negate each other, resulting in a universe with a charge of zero...

---

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Calling normal energy "positive" and dark energy "negative" makes about as much sense as calling quarks "truth" or "beauty." May work just to be able to put a name on the thing, but there's no relation between the labels and he functionings. You can't start applying any amount of electromagnetic theory to this thing here, no more than I can start talking about chromatology in the "beauty" of a quark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

...how can density affect mass?

---

I have 1 liter of water. I know that water has a density of 1kg/L. Well... there's really only one thing I can figure for the mass of that water right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

You make good points, but some things are simply unexplainable and must be left as scientific phenomina (like what I said about black holes.)

---

That sounds an awful lot like the "God did it, we can't understand it" argument...

soo

β^[ε/(V/(εg))=bananas?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

No, they are not true statements.
.............I win?

Any physicist will tell you that a black hole comes to a point of singularity. The mass defines the event horizon, as you know.

Just use logic- how can density affect mass?
The equation is Density = Mass/Volume isn't it? If either the mass or volume changes, so does density.

However, let's talk about math (since you brought it up from a mathematical point of view.)
Alright.


Infinity is everything and nothing at the same time. If you multiply or divide by infinity you are left with...infinity- everything and nothing. This applies to every number no matter how hard you look at it, including zero.
http://www.mathleague.com/help/wholenumbers/wholenumbers.htm#thezeropropertyofmultiplication


As you may know, funny things happen when you divide by zero. This spills over into the real world with black holes.
Funny things don't happen, because it has no answer, it is simply undefined, attempting to assign an arbitrary value to dividing by zero is a flaw in your equation.


Are they possible mathematically? No.
Then they aren't possible, Mathematics is the most basic and important method of proof.

Are they there? Yes.
Proof?

You make good points, but some things are simply unexplainable
Everything is explainable

---

Reply is in the quote.

And away we go! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

Hol on... you are mixing up your own terminology all over the place. Applying arbitrary labels to some concepts doesn't mean you can suddenly apply, say, electromagnetic theory to dark matter.
Nowhere did you prove that the "super atom" is actually a single atom. In fact, logic would dictate that, despite being packed in the space normally reserved for one atom, it is still however many of them that exist. (Well, that or some strange amalgam of energy, that's entirely possible, but at any rate, that means using properties of atoms makes even less sense.) Therefore, you can't apply anything relating to a single atom.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Calling normal energy "positive" and dark energy "negative" makes about as much sense as calling quarks "truth" or "beauty." May work just to be able to put a name on the thing, but there's no relation between the labels and he functionings. You can't start applying any amount of electromagnetic theory to this thing here, no more than I can start talking about chromatology in the "beauty" of a quark.
I have 1 liter of water. I know that water has a density of 1kg/L. Well... there's really only one thing I can figure for the mass of that water right there.
That sounds an awful lot like the "God did it, we can't understand it" argument...

---

Yes, I know my terminology has a habit getting thrown around quite a bit. To be fair, I haven't had anyone proof read it yet ;) I coined the term "super atom" from a show I watched (it was on the Science channel, I no longer remember what the show was called nor the name of the man who used the term first but I would recognize a picture of him) a few years ago that discussed a few of the same points I've made. I assumed that other people had knowledge of a similar thing (a lapse in judgement on my part.) When I said super atom, I meant the singularity/point where the universe expanded. I know that I never proved it was an atom, but think about it logically- something that contains everything in our universe. It is not the size of an atom. I merely believe that it had properties like an atom. My reason for believing is that I simply do- a reason that cannot be explained or broken down. It's just a part of my belief (I'll try to elaborate later though, it's getting late here and I'm getting tired.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

In fact, logic would dictate that, despite being packed in the space normally reserved for one atom, it is still however many of them that exist. (Well, that or some strange amalgam of energy, that's entirely possible, but at any rate, that means using properties of atoms makes even less sense.) Therefore, you can't apply anything relating to a single atom.

---

Although I've said this before, a super atom is not an atom like what we have around us. A super atom contains all of the matter and energy that is in our universe. Why would there be another

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Calling normal energy "positive" and dark energy "negative" makes about as much sense as calling quarks "truth" or "beauty." May work just to be able to put a name on the thing, but there's no relation between the labels and he functionings. You can't start applying any amount of electromagnetic theory to this thing here, no more than I can start talking about chromatology in the "beauty" of a quark.

---

It seems as though I miss-typed. I meant pressure in the sense that positive pressure causes things to compress, and since negative is the opposite of positive, negative pressure will cause things to expand. Again, I'm sorry that I forgot a key word. I'll edit that soon. Electromagnetic theory isn't relevant on large scale (correct me if I'm mistaken, but when I say that I'm thinking of the strong an weak nuclear force. Please correct me and elaborate on what electtromagnetic theory is if I'm wrong.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

I have 1 liter of water. I know that water has a density of 1kg/L. Well... there's really only one thing I can figure for the mass of that water right there.
That sounds an awful lot like the "God did it, we can't understand it" argument...

---

I don't see how the "God argument" applies here...

Sorry that I missed your post. As you may know the other thread got locked and I vanished for about a week.

You "believe" this, you "feel" that... please, stop pretending like your mind functions on a plane so far above the rest of us that we aren't going to comprehend-it doesn't. So honestly? I could reply to each of the points you made right there in series, but it will pretty much boil down to "proof or ****."

You're a skilled BSer, but there actually are people that can see through shams to get attention.

Thank you and good night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pialpha

No, they are not true statements.
.............I win?

M = ∞ x 0
0 = ∞ x M

Those are not true statements as logic will tell you. There's no need to be an ass and ignore what I said.


Any physicist will tell you that a black hole comes to a point of singularity. The mass defines the event horizon, as you know.

Just use logic- how can density affect mass?
The equation is Density = Mass/Volume isn't it? If either the mass or volume changes, so does density.

How can the density of an object possibly affect the amount of matter in a object? Forget your "math". Density is the dependant variable here and mass is the independant variable. Nothing in density will ever affect mass, but mass will always affect density. Think before you make an argument; it usually helps.

However, let's talk about math (since you brought it up from a mathematical point of view.)
Alright.


Infinity is everything and nothing at the same time. If you multiply or divide by infinity you are left with...infinity- everything and nothing. This applies to every number no matter how hard you look at it, including zero.
http://www.mathleague.com/help/whole...multiplication

Care to actually explain it scientifically?


As you may know, funny things happen when you divide by zero. This spills over into the real world with black holes.
Funny things don't happen, because it has no answer, it is simply undefined, attempting to assign an arbitrary value to dividing by zero is a flaw in your equation.

Take the number six and divide it in two parts until you have nothing left. What is in each part? Three. Take the number six and divide it by zero until nothing is left. You can do this an infinite number of times and will still have six. Attempting to argue with me based on what you were tauht instead of using thought is a flaw in you.

Are they possible mathematically? No.
Then they aren't possible, Mathematics is the most basic and important method of proof.

Would you like to explain to me why black holes are real?

Are they there? Yes.
Proof?
Order a copy of "A Brief History of Time", by Steven Hawking and "Our Universe in a Nutshell", by Steven Hawken. Then come back to me.

You make good points, but some things are simply unexplainable
Everything is explainable
Why would all honeybees in New York simply disapear without explaination?

---

The reply is in blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

You "believe" this, you "feel" that... please, stop pretending like your mind functions on a plane so far above the rest of us that we aren't going to comprehend-it doesn't. So honestly? I could reply to each of the points you made right there in series, but it will pretty much boil down to "proof or ****."

You're a skilled BSer, but there actually are people that can see through shams to get attention.

Thank you and good night.

---

Are you serious? I never said one of those things you are insinuating. Are you enraged by the fact that I defend my points? By the fact that I use logic, math, and science? I'm sorry that you feel the need to flame me and come with half assed insults, but that's just plain pathetic.

You're clearly a skilled troll and I'm glad you manage mastering that skill. However, I've done nothing to you and I've done nothing wrong. In not one way, not a damn way, have I insulted you or even acted like I'm better than anyone. I don't know what your problem is but you need to get over it. And stop thinking that you're so much better than everyone else just because you have multiple bars of rep and over 3k posts. It's REALLY annoying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

You're clearly a skilled troll

---

http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-04...0266540309.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

I've done nothing wrong.

---

4 of the same threads=Something pretty wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

In not one way, not a damn way, have I insulted you or even acted like I'm better than anyone.

---

I don't even have to post an image for this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

I don't know what your problem is but you need to get over it. And stop thinking that you're so much better than everyone else just because you have multiple bars of rep and over 3k posts. It's REALLY annoying.

---

http://img461.imageshack.us/img461/9619/camel25ps.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

Are you serious? I never said one of those things you are insinuating.

---

By popular demand, here they are:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

I secretly hoped that the readers of this thread would have the intelligence required to simply read informaton, but I guess I was execting too much...

---

No comment required

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

Just use logic- how can density affect mass?

---

Implying we can't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

I assumed that other people had knowledge of a similar thing (a lapse in judgement on my part.)

---

So you're trying to say you know more than us, despite the facts that we've shown quite enoug hknowledge about i?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

My reason for believing is that I simply do- a reason that cannot be explained or broken down.

---

Two wys to interpret this: Blind belief (bad) or saying only you can understand it, implying we aren't smart enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

I don't see how the "God argument" applies here...

---

Honestly? I spelled it out pretty clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

There's no need to be an ass and ignore what I said.

---

He... didn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

Think before you make an argument; it usually helps.

---

Very well thought out, I'd actually say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

Order a copy of "A Brief History of Time", by Steven Hawking and "Our Universe in a Nutshell", by Steven Hawken. Then come back to me.

---

Oh yes, because you can automatically assume you're more well-read...

This will be fast for you, Revoltion.

1. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I'm sorry that you haven't broken the five hundred word mark yet in your vocabulary.
2. Four threads of the same person (you) telling me I'm wrong? As I recall, you said something along the lines of "god did it, so there"...At least thirty points of my rep comes from responsing to you...would you like to see them?
3. The reason you don't have an image is because there isn't one for it, unless you count me responding to you and the trolls.

This is getting tiring.

bree just made you like an ass and a idiot, lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

This will be fast for you, Revoltion.

1. Pictures are worth a thousand words. I'm sorry that you haven't broken the five hundred word mark yet in your vocabulary.
2. Four threads of the same person (you) telling me I'm wrong? As I recall, you said something along the lines of "god did it, so there"...At least thirty points of my rep comes from responsing to you...would you like to see them?
3. The reason you don't have an image is because there isn't one for it, unless you count me responding to you and the trolls.

This is getting tiring.

---

I'm doing you a favor by not writing out my 499 word vocabulary then.
I'm saying you're wrong by making FOUR OF THE SAME THREAD
I said I don't need one. Not that I don't have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

By popular demand, here they are:
No comment required
Implying we can't?
So you're trying to say you know more than us, despite the facts that we've shown quite enoug hknowledge about i?
Two wys to interpret this: Blind belief (bad) or saying only you can understand it, implying we aren't smart enough?
Honestly? I spelled it out pretty clearly.
He... didn't?
Very well thought out, I'd actually say.
Oh yes, because you can automatically assume you're more well-read...

---

(In order of appearence)

1. I don't take kindly to people who walk in, insult me, then walk out. I find it difficult to tell those people who they are and sugar coat it.
2. I was making a request. Stop implying that I'm implying; start answering instead...
3. I love how you cut out the main part of that sentance. To be fair, none of you watched the program I saw, so my only fair response is to say yes in that particular subject, but nothing else.
4. Can you explain why you like a certain food? Can you explain why your nerve endings find the taste pleasant? If you can then that's great...if not, you yourelf are unable to explain something. How can you possibly see what I'm trying to say, apart from being me? Stop saying that I imply I'm smarter...that implies that you're unable to come up with a reasnable response.
5. I see now. However, this has nothing to do with God. Just because I said something is simply inexplainable doesn't mean I said that God made it that way, or even that I believe or don't believe in God or anything. Don't drag religion into this; I don't want this to get more derailed.
6. Should I even bother?
7. If you've read either of those books you would have your answer. Again, stop implying and assuming. You'll make an ass out of u and me

Revoltion, you've done nothing here. Please, go away.

Jdm, you haven't even read my response until just now. I'd like for you to shut your mouth and open your eyes. Sticking up for the trolls gets you nowhere.


If it isn't any trouble, I'm going to bed now. I'll resume tomorrow morning.

Quote:

---

M = ∞ x 0
0 = ∞ x M

Those are not true statements as logic will tell you. There's no need to be an ass and ignore what I said.

---

They are not true statements because the original statement was false. It is the only way they could not be true.

Example:
Density = 10
Volume = 2
Mass = 20

10=20/2
20 = 10*2
2 = 20/10


Example2
Density = 7
Volume = 3
Mass = 21

7=21/3
21 = 7*3
3 = 21/7


So on...

I checked your equation, and it failed....

Quote:

---

How can the density of an object possibly affect the amount of matter in a object? Forget your "math". Density is the dependant variable here and mass is the independant variable. Nothing in density will ever affect mass, but mass will always affect density. Think before you make an argument; it usually helps.

---

I NEVER SAID DENSITY AFFECTS MASS. I WAS USING MATH TO SHOW YOUR EQUATION WAS WRONG.

Quote:

---

Care to actually explain it scientifically?

---

It is the zero property of multiplication....ANYTHING times zero is zero, it is a fundamental rule.

Quote:

---

Take the number six and divide it in two parts until you have nothing left. What is in each part? Three. Take the number six and divide it by zero until nothing is left. You can do this an infinite number of times and will still have six. Attempting to argue with me based on what you were tauht instead of using thought is a flaw in you

---

.....You broke your own logic... Let me show you where!

Quote:

---

Take the number six and divide it in two parts until you have nothing left. What is in each part? Three.

---

..

Quote:

---

Take the number six and divide it into zero until parts until nothing is left. What is in each part? According to you, infinity.

---

I just switched your equation into the same format as the first one....See the error?

Quote:

---

Attempting to argue with me based on what you were tauht instead of using thought is a flaw in you

---

Attempting to argue with me without using anything you were taught is a flaw in you.

Quote:

---

Would you like to explain to me why black holes are real?

---

We used math to calculate them based off relativity and the motion of stars around them didn't we?

Quote:

---

Order a copy of "A Brief History of Time", by Steven Hawking and "Our Universe in a Nutshell", by Steven Hawken. Then come back to me.

---

I own both, your argument is invalid.

Quote:

---

Why would all honeybees in New York simply disapear without explaination?

---

There is an explanation, we just don't know it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oss Spy

how can density affect mass?

---

Well, the priest could get his cassocks wrapped around the altarpiece and in his confusion, misconjugate a Latin term.

now pialpha has made you look like an idiot

what is the point of posting this other than to get slammed by revo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomN00b

what is the point of posting this other than to get slammed by revo?

---

Clearly, the other reason is to be proven wrong by a pair of people who actually know how to put together a cohesive argument. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomN00b

what is the point of posting this other than to get slammed by revo?

---

This post is the defining point of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomN00b

what is the point of posting this other than to get slammed by revo?

---

Who DOESN'T wanna get slammed by Revo amirite? ;)

you do have truth in your words but it was believed that the polarity of each dust ball were rapidly speeding at a given rate around as we would call it (100000000000000) times the speed of light making the universes.

A closed mind is an enigma indeed. Nothing ever goes in -- but odd things are forever coming out. - Laurence Dunphy

Can't say I'm a fan of the tone this thread took. Closing it.