NASA Gravity Experiment Finds Space-Time Vortex Around Earth, Like a Vat of Fourth-Dimensional Molasses

Well of course Einstein was right his race worked out that whole space/time thing a Billion years before there mammals on Earth.

THIs developement explains many things and skews all previous calculations with regard to extrasolar events. IT also opens up a new world of math to astonomers who need more exacting numbers to conduct experiments with regard to space and time. Lastly the new equations that come from the realization of this new truth may help solve the energy crisis on the Earth. All-in-all I would say it has ben a red letter day for science and I for one bow to Albert Einsteins genius.

Thank you Albert its too bad much of the world was too stubborn to listen when you spoke the first time.

@caradoc01

Are you suggesting that people with autism are aliens?

ghosts.of.reach: Just because some people have proposed that Einstein may have had a slight case of autism does not mean that he did. There is no proof of this, regardless of his personality traits. I myself dislike crowds, keep very few friends, and will talk to empty rooms yet I have not been suspected of autism.

My point is, without the ability to properly and test the hypothesis, it is folly to proclaim that the expected result must be true.

And a side note that is unrelated to the topic at hand: Popsci.com staff: Please inform your spam filter that I am NOT spam!

At Ghosts of Reach - Nope, he's suggesting that brilliance of that level couldn't possible come from the same soup as the majority of what walks the Earth currently. Genetically...different. Piles and piles of folks TRY to keep humanity in equality but thank GOD that's not the design. Some folks just rule while others trim their hedges. Enjoy watching re-runs of Jerry Springer this afternoon! Cool name though! Halo is seweet! Anyway, maybe Caradoc meant the German Race...Which I would agree with in equal terms. Cheers!

The theory of relativity is bulletproof...but only accounts for 4% of the mass of the universe...so where is the other 96% coming from....DARK MATTER

yes everything exists in a net. its invisible to the naked eye but its there. just like matter. i believe that we were created by the Anunnaki. maybe they are the creators of everything we see.

@ghosts.of.reach: No I am suggesting he was not of the human race, as for the autism thing, both of my kids have been diagnosed with ASD so get of the soapbox before it collapses under you

@Eldensword: no I was not refering to German people they are no better than anyone else on this mud ball we call earth and 'god' has little to no place in this universe, not since man killed it, good ridence

@Aldrons...: Dark Matter, perhaps, we know so little about the universe though

*PADODY*

Oh come on now you silly science people. We all know "gravitational theory" is just that, a theory! We all know theories are just theories!!! Just look at evolution! You guys are silly… next thing you crazy people are going to say is that insects have more than 4 legs *shakes his head*

I prove science wrong all the time, I pray -- then go about my merry way just floating around… Eat your heart gravity, for as we all know in John 14:13-14 (along with 8 other places which say the same thing… not that prayer would be considered, that it would be answered and/or given!!!) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. It is pretty straight forward. This is how I prove you wrong every time… along with drinking poison and handling deadly serpents just like the good book says!

I mean, this article tries to imply that space is a fabric like my jeans! The Earth is like someone sitting on a chair or a trampoline! We all know this is false! Not only is there no fabric (weave me some space jeans!) we know that from our good book in multiple places that the world itself is set on pillars! Not fabric.

Geez. For people who seem to intelligent, I don’t understand how you are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old, when your science is so silly establishing the age of Earth at a few billion years. A few billion years ha! Now *that’s* a theory!

@ EVERYONE. This is simple logic. But the realization that I've come to that eventually all mankind will come to is... Space itself is a fluid. It is an unknown material supercooled and pressurized to the point of behaving as one elemental unit. It is more basic than atoms, quarks, forces, etc. It is the extradimensional fabric which existence is built. Time/Etc. should be constant given conventional thought. If time can BE warped, space can be warped and that fact that two of our reality's backdrops can be so easily warped by a force such as gravity begins the thought that there must be something further underneath providing stability/cementing properties while allowing for this flux.

Godlessness and Science don't mix. Reality is a prism within a prism within a prison. Faith is the single most perfect, observable theory. Faith, that with all of the distractions and all of the numbers, one can still know eternity. Too bad it's an oxymoron for me to say "Enjoy your eternal darkness". I'm no zealot. But to hear anyone say, "Good riddance to God" and watch them read and interact on an intellectual site...It's like bad Shakespeare - Still entertaining, yet immensely asinine. To not believe in the church, the Bible or any other doctrine makes perfect sense. People are nuts! But to see the constant reminders within the study of science that all things around us are “programmed” to do and behave in perfect ways which retrieve perfect result such as, not just life, but an abundance of it? Oh, I pity the blind - With all due respect. I know your rebuttal is moments away. I have not a “convert” in me. But I share this with any believers. Your feet rest comfortably on the ground due to a force in which we cannot calculate, replicate or comprehend. Even if we could, nothing comes from nothing. A star manifests into the darkness and impossible space, in the same likelihood that a sulfur and wood match would manifest its self and light itself at the bottom of the crushing, cold Ocean…and burn for 5 billion years.

To all of you who used this fascinating article on general relativity to pontificate your views on religion:

Seriously?

Can't you find another forum on the internet that's a little more relevant for religious and/or space alien commentary?

What would be really cool is to prove that gravity waves exist, but it sounds like there's no funding for the space-based laser interferometry experiment right now.

maybe our universe is just one of many in an ocean of trillions of universes. only a supreme being would be able to create this one that has managed to survive for trillions of years. sorry if im sounding to sci fi but at the end of the day sci fi is just premeditation of sci fact. i point my finger to the Annunaki.

Laurenra - Like all forum behavior, these comments turned into multiple subjects and questions, yet this one still manages to circle back to the article subject...Thanks to your post...and now mine. It's a shame that they don't print money for intense science studies like this in the same way they print money for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack and GM. The suggested spin given to space-time is relative to the size of the mass sitting at the center of the vortex so would that mean that if we could free ourselves (travel far enough away) from the Earth's effect on time-space it would create a "time-free" or "time-condensed" environment? Is that why the Mars Rovers lasted years longer than predicted? They travelled long enough outside the time vortex and therefore were extended in life? What about the Voyagers? Time study should be job one. We dismiss traveling great lengths of space to find other Earth-like planets with current tech since we assume it would take millions and even billions of years to get to certain places. What if time stopped ticking, we stopped aging and machinery lasted eternally outside of a certain area from stellar objects? I know this is starting to sci-fi. Not my intention…Oh wait, it’s a forum! Things like that happen.

Sorry, one more thing...Wouldn't it make perfect sense that if each massive object created a "swirling effect" on space-time that in fact was a "drain" and accelerated time creating our perception of aging...That staying outside of it would mean eternal life...And therefore we can start to see how and why Heavenly or alien visitors may come in occasionally for visits but never want to stay for very long? Total fringe, I get that. But it boggles the mind. What could be imagined that would be the reverse of such a law in nature? Could it be applied to an entire planet, leaving the occupants free of the laws of time? Eden? Hhhmm…I never thought of this until now. Insightful article!

Einstein's brain was 15% larger than an average human, that may have gave him a unique advantage to conjure such brilliant theories and mathematical formulae to support them.

Now that space and time have been more proven to be a woven fabric, we must learn to manipulate it; push, pull, pinch and expand space time, most likely via gravity/antigravity waves.

Gravity manipulation is the key to FTL travel.

Let's get to it!

This coming from scientists who still believe gravity is created by an iron core.

Amazing. Warp space. Huh. How? You see space is nothing. It does not go on forever because it is nothing. All that exists are atoms that spin like a little gyros. This centrifugal force causes gravity. A hydrogen atom has one orbiting sub atomic particle and has little gravity. A lead atom has much more orbiting particles and has a higher gravity. Mass creates gravity because the more of these spinning gyros you mass together the higher the gravity.

All that exists are these little atoms that when put together reflect light so we can see them. Depending on their make up they look like gas clouds, planets, and stars.

The gravitational effect of these spinning gyros affected the gyros on the satellite and this is due to a warping of time space? Please. Einsteins predictions were right, but the reason for them is incorrect and scientists are still too stubborn to see it.

Eldensword, you are brilliant!

Voices1776, your theory accounts for 3 dimensions, not 4.

Nevertheless, I still believe that space-time (as a huge fat nothing) is infinite. But I just have /faith/ of that. Oh, the irony…

I've also come to believe that our progression through time is merely inertia, propelling everything in a general direction, perhaps by forces of the big bang.

Again, unproveable, but I have faith in it.

(just so people don't misinterpret my irony comment, I'm referring to people who say logic takes away the need for faith, when in actuality faith is necessary for logic to exist. Really, we can't even prove the existence of the universe. We just have faith that it does).

i think we'll find out all the answers when we die. I'm looking forward to it. hopefully it's not soon, but when it happens i'll be ready.

I'm sure Einstein understood how the term 'theory' was used in Science... it's particularly enlightening that religionists just don't.

Eldensword I love your post,

I have personally thought of this myself. Just look at how perfect the human body is. We have just the correct mapping of neurons that allow us to have complex thoughts. We have a circulatory system that is also rather complex, but seriously when did our ancestors just all of a sudden spawn even simple circulatory systems like normal evolutionary theory would try to explain it. Another thing is how simple DNA is, only 4 differing compounds that only appear in 2 combinations, were able to be conglomerated to control things such as eye color and how large our bone structure is going to be.

I just have one problem with one of your posts. If I understood you right, you mentioned that spin is caused by heavy objects pressing down on the space/time fabric, and then cause gravity. When the article proposes that gravity is simply caused by the spin of the planets.

There is either a typo concerning the 100 mile distance or NASA is using the funny math that missed Mars a few years back. I just checked... the thickness of a sheet of paper is only 0.004" not 31". Verify the numbers.

Eldensworld: Just popping in to say I'm living quite happily avec science, sans God.

As well, whomever said "you need faith for logic", I disagree wholeheartedly. Faith does not breed logic, logic does not breed faith. It is illogical to believe in some supernatural creation story which can never be proven true or even highly probable.

Quantum Leaper, I suppose I added "pushing down" in error. I was formulating the diagram we've all seen of the Earth acting as a "trampoline" to space-time. Since there is no up or down in space...It's a bit confusing. The spin creating a warp of space-time and my comments therein seem to make more sense lol.

Fallacy - It is illogical to put any effort into a situation that will result in ill-reward, or non-reward instead of having faith and at least potentially being reward. Duh.

Let me start the post like this:

Faith and Science are irreprehensibly severed

Thank you, now we can move on

Also, whats with this article making it sound as if Einsteinian mechanics have just now been verified. I want to see the video of someone making this accusation and a scientist throwing his/her shoe at them. This experiment is total c00ln355, but furthers nothing in the respect of acceptability or validity of the theory.

Also, those zealots who wish to learn more about colliquialisms do this:

Look up the definition.... of... Scientific Theory

I'm sure you'll be cleaverly surprised at your own blatent ignorance

And one more thing. At whoever posted about darkmatter and relativity... what type of puple haze were you smoking?

@Eldensword

I don't disagree with you on most things; I disagree with you on every single thing that you wrote. In fact not only do I find your sad attempts to wax poetically a fallacious and haphazard failure I declare that your vitriol arguments are academically void, unsympathetically stupid, and demonstrably wrong.
“Reality is a prism within a prism within a prison.”
… Really? Are you that stupid that you think summarizing perceived existence with a silly sounding and logic less analogy proves your point? Even if this were true in some sort of non abstract empirical sort of way (You know, reality?) there are still certain perceivable truths about prism within prisms ad infinitum. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean that you can make fallacious accusations about ‘perfect observable theories’ such as “Faith”. I challenge you as the ‘intelligent person’ you say you are to qualify your logically innocuous statement.

On TOP of your already perceivable ignorance you continue to demote yourself by asserting that “Good riddance to God” is some sort of intellectually dishonest statement. Apparently your grade school teachers failed to teach you how to ascertain concepts via context. Next time you feel the need to impose your opinions on the subject matter of another individual read the passage sloooowly and say the words out loud vowel by vowel until you actually understand what has been written.

I’m entertained by your philosophy that since things seem programmed to a particular value that implies intended manipulation of some sort by default, or that those who find no particular magic in the construct are somehow blind in some nonsensical sort of way. On top of your glaring educational blindness you assert that we are somehow grounded by something in which we cannot calculate, replicate, explain, or comprehend all of which are demonstrably falsifiable.

Next time, do some research and save yourself the pains of publically being called out as an idiot. If this is the type of thing you fancy please find a different medium. Leave PopSci out of your disastrous path of ignorance and philosophical nonsense.

hey people scince they prove space-time is fabiric and you can rip it let me propose this idea.

Ok first you use different weights to estimate the mass needed to rip certain fabrics on earth and how much force (gravitational,or do it in space so you can measure it with mechanical force)is required to break these fabrics the you estimate the toughness of the fabric of space-time by estimateing te mass of a imploding supergaint using measures from more stable stars from this you make a space craft with a very,very,very,very,very,VERY dense and shap knife or needle (somthing like that) and attach it to a very,very,very,very,very,VERY fast space craft and i THINK this may create a black hole if we knew how to moderate the size we could then dirve a manned crew through the hole and back reciving accurate information on where the black holes go.

Okay one, everyone take a chill pill!

Two, since there's a universal gravitational constant, (sticking with the trampoline analogy) would that be the angle at which every depression made by anything rises?

And 3, Parad0x13, "blatent ignorance" is spelled "blatant ignorance".

Just thought you should learn something from us, the ignorant :)

Sorry if I caused you the pain of being publicly called out as an idiot. :)

Parad0x13, your pride and arrogance will be your downfall. If you were to set them aside and consult The true authority you would find that the intelligence that you perceive yourself to have is but filthy rags when compared to true intelligence.
At one point in your lengthy rant you claim that Eldonsword's arguments are demonstrably wrong. Yet you never attempt to demonstrate in any way how they are so. You only proceed to use your vocabulary or thesaurus to try and give the impression of intellect only to betray that attempt with erroneous and fallible arguments of your own.
I will pray for you that the first time you acknowledge God is not at His judgement seat.

On topic: I love how science continually shows evidence of God and His wisdom. All the while trying to prove the opposite. I also find it amazing that science requires just as much faith in unseen things as God does, yet so many, much like Parad0x, are so willing to put their faith in science over God. Especially when the rewards of faith in science are only knowledge of the created thing and the reward of faith in God is knowledge of the creator. That boggles my mind more than the thought of infinite space.

I'm no physicist, but it's so amazing to know that we are just recently able to prove something that someone from years ago have already thought of. I'm wondering what our development in the field of science are right now if a genius such as Albert Einstein did not exist. Was anyone else able to come up with the same theory as his? This discovery just shows that Einstein is truly one of a kind, during his time and even now. :)

I'm not sure where this discovery would lead our current generation of scientists, but I hope there's still another genius in our time that could make something of great contribution to the humanity out of this.

@ Black hat guy
Thanks for the typo fix, apparently I missed that one... And nothing against you (not calling you blatantly ignorant, just the quips from eldensword)

@ Guitarded
My pride and arrogance will be my downfall? If I believed in a heaven/heck then yes it would but in the world of empiricism and reality that we live in if unmetered my arrogance is just an annoyance. However I posted what I posted for a reason. You happen to go on about a true authority and how my logic fails to meet a certain level of trueness which I and a lot of other people find hilarious, but all that aside it doesn't help the argument for creation any, as it provides no new evidence. And yes I did mention that eldenswords arguments are demonstrably wrong but did not mention how. Apparently it was my bad to assume that these things went unmentioned on a science forum. But other than my example of the prism analogy here are a few more reasons why he/she is demonstrably wrong:

Godlessness and Science don't mix: Falsifiable on the basis that science can be summed as the acquisition of information via empiricism and extrapolations thereof. God, and for that matter godlessness, have no testament in the field

Faith is the single most perfect, observable theory: How does he/she justify this statement? Couldn't I just say that since I observe gravity/evolution/immunology these things are as perfect as can be? Since they happened? Faith is a human emotion, recognizable yes and sometimes ambiguous. I don't see how in any way faith is a theory (unless the colloquial sense is used) but scientifically? No. And since no qualification for 'perfection' was mentioned (Just kinda shot out there) I find this statement to be very silly and demonstrably wrong

Your feet rest comfortably on the ground due to a force in which we cannot calculate, replicate or comprehend: Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We can very accurately measure gravity (That's what this thread is about!), we can replicate it (Gravity tractors for asteroids), and we can comprehend it just fine (Gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them 'Weird Al Yankovic')

Nothing comes from nothing: Does matter/antimatter spontaneous generation fall into falsifying this statement?

Then he/she proceeds to quantify statistics with stars/sulfur. Not that I'm going to demonstrate how he/she is wrong in this other than to point out that the ambiguity of the metaphor/comparison does not lead to a very good representation of his/her understanding of probabilities as these things (other than in a poetic sense) do not have the same probabilities like he/she says they do.

And that’s just from one post of his/hers. Yes I use quite the vernacular but this is to give the desired effect of ripping someone a new anus (metaphorically speaking...) but I do challenge you to prove how "betray that attempt with erroneous and fallible arguments of your own" is an accurate representation of what I've accomplished in my post. And your 'prayer' for me will be taken for what it really means "Eff you" in christianese

And also, I challenge you to explain how science continually shows evidence of god and his wisdom (Capitalizations not needed) weren’t you just talking about erroneous and fallible claims? Oh, and another of yours being that I've put my faith in science. Wrong, and most anyone could rip you a new one for claiming that one.
"Science is constantly changing to fit new information; religion is the rejection of that information so faith can be preserved" [sic] Tim Minchin

@Eldonsworld: "Fallacy - It is illogical to put any effort into a situation that will result in ill-reward, or non-reward instead of having faith and at least potentially being reward. Duh."

In your example, you need to realize that "faith" is different than "Faith". Having "faith" is based on a logical(at the least, semi logical) inference of cause and effect. If I do this, then most likely this will happen. Cause, desired outcome. "Faith" on the other hand has no base in logic. It is simply: "Well I exist, so there must be some omnipotent power which created me!". Most of us on this site can understand, only one of those two statements is sensible.

@Guitarded: Science is constantly trying to prove religion wrong? Ah, so you're one of those types huh? Well, I have a few things to say about that. Firstly, religion has yet to prove itself right. Not to mention the trifle issue of exactly which religion is right(but of course, we must assume it is your religion of choice that is correct).

Secondly, please remove the idea that science is actively trying to prove religion wrong from your head. It is absolutely a false statement. Science does not bother with religion, it only makes discoveries that bother religion. Science will march forward regardless of what religion has to say about it, and religion can either choose to keep pace or be left in the dust. There are reasons why religion does not claim the sun rotates around the Earth, or that the Earth is the center of the universe. Also, if I recall correctly, the modern literal view of creationism isn't even held in high regard in the highest levels of the Catholic church, which insists that the book of Genesis should not be read literally.

So to reiterate, religions can hoot and holler, shout and cry, scream and pout, but science will not stop in its path. It will march forward regardless of how many times religion says science is wrong. Science is not out to get religion, science is here so we may understand the universe. Now please, keep your preaching in your church, lest we of science decide your next Sunday sermon would be an excellent place to discuss the latest in evolutionary science.

@Everyone: This is something that irks me, in that to make the science understandable to everyone, there is comparison of gravity and space time to a simple fabric. It's a very limited comparison because we all know that a fabric stops at a certain horizontal plane, whereas space time and gravity affect every single direction from the point of origin. Simply, there is nothing we have that can be used to compare to space time and gravity, except in a very rudimentary fashion a gas. Gases expand outward in every direction from the point of origin. Gravity and space time do the same, despite the simplified description and drawings of them.

And finally, a small statement to www.popsci.com

Dear Popsci.com,

I am NOT a spammer!

-Fallcy

@Fallacy
If you were spam, I'd gladly read you

Kudo's for the sound mind

Oh Paradox, you silly thing! You really are a little Paradox aren’t you? Faith and human emotion are not science? Tell that to the teaming masses of psychologists that worked very hard on their PhDs. The human mind and the science within are so important that it supersedes all other sciences, don’t you think? How so? Without contemplation and then computation, there is no further study. You have the freedom and the right to post your blasphemy because of faith! Faithful men and women fled the tyranny of the Catholic Church and founded this free nation. More faithful persons followed and created a contract called the Constitution which guarantees our right to speak freely. Folks like you that bash faith and the faithful are complete paradoxes indeed! You’re kind of like those folks that are anti-gun while living safely in the compounds of their gated communities...patrolled by security and police toting guns. The fact that you have turned to direct insults clearly shows your inadequacies so I won’t dig any further. In short, science and Godlessness IS a paradox, Paradox. Ask the soldiers that pray for deliverance that fight and die for and have fought and died for, your freedom - To own a computer, be free with your speech and to be rebutting with passion, all these things are because of faith in a higher power. Your argument is clearly bent on the “Crazy Christian” crowd. Faith transcends the Christian faith there, genius. Billions would agree. Faith means a belief in a plan and source. One which we are not intended to comprehend at this time. So, there is no source of matter or anti-matter? You just have faith that it exists just, because? You claim that believing in an unseen force such as God is crazy? That’s really cute; I know you’re scrabbling to justify your stance. I’d be upset too if I thought my heart beat and my lungs filled with air without any purpose. That must be scary. “The perfect observable theory of faith” - Lay down your ego and embrace the fear. Study the sciences in order to know God. Ask for direction and truth. It’s a theory, there is no proof. It’s perfect because all things stem from it yet it can not be “proven”. And now I’m sounding more “preachy” than I intended. It’s tough to hear so much ignorance, darkness and hate and not want to help! Back to gravity for a second…We can measure the effect of gravity on matter. We can predict gravity. We can observe it in every human way possible. But, buddy, even the elite minds of our time and before can’t get quantum mechanics to work with General Relativity - Which will always mean we can’t comprehend the true nature of gravity. And for more fun, why are we trying? What are we looking for? Just, “because”, that’s the big argument against belief in God/ Gods and faith? Hilarity! Thanks to those that appreciated my words. I appreciate yours.

Eldonsworld: Is it just me, or is every single one of your points based on a assumed position which you can not possibly hope to bear the burden of proof. If you claim that science could not exist without some sort of deity, then please scour the universe until you ABSOLUTELY can prove this to be true.

I patiently await your results.

No need to scour the Universe, I saw the proof in the sonogram of my new baby the other day. For some, nothing from nothing works. For me and billions of others, we see that the mechanism of faith in God's plan, i.e. purposeful life derived from an unimaginable force, stands to give the greatest reward. The alternative is to stick our noses up and demand proof. You choose to do so, I do not. It's ridiculous for me to go back and forth since your heels and Paradox's heels are dug in. This is a very old argument and a very large one made by so many groups. Watch science closely and tell me that it doesn't do more to correct its findings than any religion could ever do. We go back to the drawing board time and time again on science "facts" from one week to the next. If you honestly dig deep enough it could be argued that nothing is fact. That's for advanced, open minded thinkers though. I won't open that can of worms here! My results are as follows - Does a fly, fly? Yes. Why? It is necessary for its life to fly. Does an ant fly? Yes, sometimes, why? Well, it makes it easy for it to get around and be an ant in different locations. (Yes, I know this is the layman’s version) - Really? What model of evolution covers the purpose of many things having a variety of attributes that are not necessary to its overall survival? Evolutionism covers survival clearly - Wings, claws, basic senses and intelligence. When did "variety" become a necessity of life? Why is this variety only seen and recorded largely starting 5000-7000 years ago if humans have been around for millions? Your magic evolution "switch" is by-far just as crazy as my faith in God. It's a leap for sure. But only one of our differing opinions promises to lead to great things. What kind of an idiot would choose to fold their arms in distain for a possible creator and a definite end - Over appreciation and faith for a possible reward? I'll take a "maybe" every time over a "definitely not". Do you tell your kids to just give up on tests if they don't get it the first time? Why not? It’s not clicking, there’s no magic switch…maybe if you push them to retest it’ll click? Why? You have faith that they may become a doctor or lawyer and make lots of money by doing well in school? There’s no proof of that, right? Anything could happen so maybe not? Right! You try and hopefully they try because you all have faith in a reward. It’s no different for us “crazies” but on a larger, much more important scale. Maybe someday it’ll “click” for you too.

Haha and I see what kind of mentality you have as well now. Have to say it, but you have no functional understand of evolution if you liken it to a "magical switch". Not only that, but you display a certain inability to differentiate between personal truths and factual truth.

As for science correcting itself, absolutely science corrects itself because it is not purported as being the divine word of some omnipotent super-being, and most definitely unlike religions it is not purported as being infallible. Yes, science corrects itself, because does not need faith. Science does not have faith that the original result of an experiment is the only result. Religion on the other hand has often said something to the effect "no, this is the way it is because this book said that this man was told by this man who spoke to god". Can you see where faith lies now? It is most certainly not in science.

You saw your child in a ultrasound. Congratulations on your child, but your logical misstep is very very blatant. That child is not proof of your deity, it is only proof that there is a child in that women. Anything beyond that is an assumption until otherwise proven. Seeing the child and thinking that's the work of some deity is a personal truth, not a factual truth, and they are VERY different.

You fail to realize that my heels are not dug in, it is the very opposite. Your belief is steeped in a relic, something written by someone you never know nor will ever know, about something that no one can prove to exist. You've taken some form of comfort and smugness in thinking that you must absolutely be right because this is what you've been told, and there's cakes and flowers and puppy dogs when you die. If that's what you need to get by then by all means live happily while keeping that to yourself. You see, my heals aren't dug in as you think, nor are paradox's. In reality, we are marching forward, past you, past the need for faith. Past such egocentric and naive claims that we are some special exception in the way things are.

Now, as I said before this is a science venue. If you'd like to peddle your faith please do it somewhere where it's not counter-productive. I hope you and yours live long and healthy lives, and maybe that someday your eyes will be the ones that will open. As well, please do not deny that child the truely vast and grand beauty of the universe and existence itself by pushing your beliefs on it.

P.S. Ants fly during what's called a nuptial flight. Once or twice a year swarms of ants emerge from an established colony, and this is usually the only time you'll see male ants. Once the males and queens to be take flight, mate, and land somewhere else the males die off and the newly fertilized queens, now distanced from the colony by their flight, set off in search of a suitable location to build a new colony. Once they've dug in, the queens shed their wings and begin laying eggs.

What a strange and wonderful world we live in.

Oh eldensword you patronizing little vermin, let me enlighten you.

"Faith and human emotion are not science?" No, they are not. Faith and human emotion are products of human psychology, which is a science. And if you even ASKED some of the teaming masses of psychologists that worked very hard on their PHDs you'd hear the insurmountable flaws in your doctrine. And no I don't think that the human mind and all that inside supersedes all other forms of science, personally I think the science of abiogenis supersedes the sciences of the mind but that’s just my opinion and I acknowledge that (as you should acknowledge your opinions as just that, an opinion) You talk about contemplation and how important it is to science, however you also say that contemplation IS a science, which it is not.

I have the freedom and the right to post my 'blasphemy' because of the intertoobz and the netwerkz and the elictroons and all that happens between them, and certainly NOT because some people fled a tyrannical subset of pious, but instead because of science and the great minds who came before me. It doesn't matter what those great minds believed in, or feared, or died for but the science they produced.

Faithful men and women fled the Catholic Church? Are you serious? Too easy, the catholic were faithful how does your argument stand up to scrutiny AT ALL? I think you’re fearful that your religion may be wrong and so you’re willing to make completely inadequate arguments to support your flailing faith.

And 'folks like me' who bash the pious are not paradoxes necessarily, 'folks like me' point out the inadequacies of religious dogma and the stupidity that constantly leaks from that vat of ignorance, and you are just a mere drop in the cesspool of pious crap.

And how dare you assume things about my personality or upbringings when you haven’t the slightest shred of information about my past to say anything enlightening? Your failed logic about anti-gun gated communities is something perhaps you should reread shortly after accompanied by a cat scan if you still honestly think you made a sound argument. And the fact that I have turned to direct insults WOULD mean that I had made myself a fool, however I did not insult you or your past, nor did I assert that I knew more about you than what you posted. I DID however assault your ridiculous assumptions and fallacious logic all of which is in the hopes of drumming up to the surface your stupidity so that others who may think about following your poetic approach to logic can see beyond the perfume and smell the rotting scent of your ideas.

I seem to have missed the part where you correlate science and god... again you make an assertion you cannot uphold.

And here comes to the part that I want everyone to read:
I am a soldier, I’ve been to the combat field and I want the world to hear these words:
“There are no Atheists in foxholes, this is not an argument against Atheists, it’s an argument against foxholes” –James Morrow

I’m here to tell you there are so many fewer soldiers who pray for deliverance than you may think, I assure you. I’ve fought for YOUR freedom to write to own a computer. I’ve fought for YOUR freedom to go to the bathroom and not worry about getting shot at by Al Queda, I’ve fought for YOUR freedom to spout off about god and his loving nature at church on Sunday and I’ve fought for YOUR freedom to write such ridiculous religious crap on an internet forum so that I would read it and respond (All assuming your American) And I tell you NOTHING I’ve ever done out there had anything to do with faith in a deity. And so have so many who have come before me and so many will be afterwards.

My arguments are based on the kind of crazy you are eldensword, crazy Christian or not YOU are the reason I’ve strived to better myself, YOU are the reason I’m ashamed to call myself human at times, and YOU are the reason I spend so much time in front of a keyboard increasing my chances for carpal tunnel syndrome in the hopes that some poor misguided individual doesn’t follow in your footsteps. And just because billions would agree does not mean you are right, just because billions may agree that the world is flat doesn’t make it so. And if faith is the confidence in a plan why WOULDN’T we be allowed to know it? See these types of questions are what drove me from faith in the first place, and they may drive you too if you seriously asked.

Your matter/antimatter quote doesn’t deserve my response, but in the hopes you’ll learn from me you should know that physics observes that matter/antimatter spontaneous generation is a natural occurrence in our universe which is very plentiful. You should also know that just because I may not be able to pinpoint the required situation for its generation does not mean that someone else can’t, or that nobody ever will (If you’re so into your religion research the god of the gaps argument, then take all the lightning rods off your house) And no I don’t have faith JUST BECAUSE, I understand that it is a natural series of events in our universe and I have no other choice but to acknowledge its importance for what it is, and not make up some magic about god trying to rip the cosmos or something silly.

And never in my prose did I mention that I thought believing in god was crazy, in fact YOU came quite close:
“To not believe in the church, the Bible or any other doctrine makes perfect sense”
I don’t dog on people for believing in god, some people find pleasure in what I perceive to be ignorance, and others are brought up that way and don’t know anything else. I dog on people who assert knowledge about things they don’t understand and who have never actually researched the opposition to their faith enough to ascertain a clear understanding of what it is they are arguing against! Like you, eldensword.

It seems that YOU are the one scrambling for justification, however I don’t see it as cute I see it as sad and shameful. By the way because I don’t believe in a supernatural force that drives this world I’m content with what IS, and not what I THINK it is (without supporting evidence) You think for some reason that your heart and lungs operate because a magic man in the sky made it so and it can’t possibly be anything else, well that’s a pedantic mindset. Your fear that things would be bad had you not had your mindset proves that you resist opposing ideologies; this is something you should work on if you want to be an intelligent.

Embracing fear is one of the reasons why I turned from the church in the first place, why should I tarry myself with possible bad outcomes when I can be a good well natured person here and now and do good by my fellow man and be happy? Well because I don’t want to go to hell, but what is… what if… what… how… really? Yes, I asked questions and got no answer, hell by all reasoning probably is just a means to scare people into believing what it is they want them to believe and I’m not going to be the fish who bites that hook any longer. Now that I’m free from the dogma of oppressive fearful religion I can let out a breath of true happiness now that I know I’m not forced to lie to myself. Even in the darkest days of deployment where you said a soldier might need god in I still never felt the need for faith in because I had worked PAST that, just as so many already have and are doing as they learn faith is not something that they need anymore, contrary to what they heard as they were growing up.

You again mention ‘theory’ and improperly use it so I feel the need to ‘learn you’ another word.
Theory – Used colloquially is a ‘best guess’ extrapolated from all supporting evidence. Used scientifically such as in ‘Gravitational Theory’, ‘Evolutionary Theory’, ‘Abiological Theory’ means a congregation of all supporting EVIDENCE for those theory sets. So stop using the word so hap hazardously until you can use it right.

Gravity yep lets come back to it. Other than the fact that I’m not your ‘buddy’ I do have to point out that just because we have yet to formalize a working framework for micro and macro mechanics DOES NOT MEAN that we never will. The greatest minds in the world once thought the universe was made of earth, air, fire, water, and ether. Would you say then that we will never grasp the concept of chemistry?

Why are we trying to understand it? What do we hope to accomplish? What are we looking for? These are not the types of questions asked by a scientist; remove yourself from Popular SCIENCE forums immediately.

Also on a final note for this post, I don’t think there are many who find your words ‘appreciated’, but thanks for appreciating mine

What you saw proof of in the sonogram of your new baby was that there was a new baby. Emotions run ramped during times of extreme sadness, gladness, fear, and surprise but do not get confused. And no, “nothing from nothing” is not a common argument from most people. I can tell you with certain confidence that the infant you saw developing is the product of a developing cell cluster initiated by the convergence of two reproductive cells driven by such science as osmosis and cellular development. Not POOF god put em’ there. How did these systems come about you may ask? Through processes quite similar to that of which you seem to not understand working itself all the way back to abiogenisis (A form of science I’ve mentioned a few times already. And if you were really looking for answers you would have looked it up already but I doubt your sincerity so I recommend doing that now) We ‘stick our noses in the air’ because we have supporting evidence, here’s another quote for you whose origins I’m ashamed to admit I don’t know:
“It’s okay to have your head in the clouds, as long as your feet are on the ground”
And saying we demand proof and you do not, is saying something very important about yourself

Our heels are not dug in, perhaps to wanting to know about reality? Yes, about changing our views upon inbound knowledge? Yeppers! About our undying faith in the existing processes and current information? Not for a second. This is a creed you hold, not us. Our heels are not dug in, yours are. And to borrow the analogy you should really change shoes because your feet are beginning to stink.

Science changes! OMG!! OMFG!!! Well so does the perceived existence of reality and the methodology to replicating happenstance. Things tend to work better this way; disease tends to dissipate that way, oh! Penicillin actually helps? Wait, bacteria and not demons? THAT is why science changes. Change is a GOOD thing, not a crutch. Change is what drives development, change is our friend eldensword! Change gooooood, dogma baaaaad. And religion DOES change, look up the catholic churches apology to gallileo, or the acceptance of evolution, or that condoms aren’t bad, or that lightning rods are goooooood. Here’s a quick fact for you:
Religion changes constantly because of new scientific findings, never once has science changed its opinion because of a religious finding.

“That's for advanced, open minded thinkers though” Are you… effing… serious? I can’t believe you just said that. You just made everyone who read that comment just that much dumber. You have got to be the dumbest mentally deranged idiot I have ever EVER come across on an intellectual site… I pity you and your family.

You then proceed to obfuscate entirely the science of evolution… really do us and yourself a favor and actually read a book on the topic. Don’t just stare at the cover and admire the pictures of naked women, actually READ the darn thing. I recommend Charles Darwin’s ‘The Origins of Species’ if you’re in for an eye opener. And what the heck are you talking about ‘variety only seen and recorded largely starting 5000-7000 years ago’. I don’t know what history books you’ve been reading (Probably one starting with B and ending with ible) but you seriously need to educate yourself with real literature with real science.

“I’ll take a ‘maybe’ every time over a ‘definitely not’”, here’s a maybe for you: Repent to the lord Allah and you will be saved, pray to the spring goddess and you will have a good life, end your prayers with RAMEN and the FSM will be happy with you. What sets your faith aside from any other faiths that tout a ‘maybe’ heaven? And what’s with your test analogy? How does that (make any sense) have anything to do with … ANYTHING? Another falsifiable statement, and since I guess you feel I should qualify:
I tell my kids to do well in school because it is statistically proven that those who care about their education and strive to succeed do better in this economy. And as has been prior noted, there is a difference between ‘faith’ and ‘Faith’.

I don’t think it’s ever ‘Clicked’ with you, I think instead something has ‘Snapped’

:applaud:

@Parad0x: Thank you for serving sir.

Whoa guys, calm down. I don't see why science and religion can't both overlap. I'm not agree with Eldensword, because he seems like the typical nut-job evangalist. However, I don't feel like a definative answer explaining the Universe can come from science and religion alone. I don't take either at face value.

Referring to the article: science is awesome. This experiment seems so simple on paper, but the outcome is great. It's amazing that Albert figured this out nearly 100 years ago and we are just now confirming it. Great article!

@jaygott12: It's a tad irritating when the likes of eldensworld and others who follow the same belief come to this forum and begin denouncing science or promoting their particular religion anytime some great discovery is made, or even some small evolutionary discovery.

At the very least the extra traffic helps to pay some of popsci.com's bills. And yes, the discovery is indeed fantastic. I actually admit to being so excited about it I immediately texted my gf about it, the response to which was her telling me that I'm a nerd.

I think it's a very interesting time to be alive, there have been quite a few interesting discoveries made over the past year or two, and with computer power becoming even greater I can only hope that discoveries are made faster.

@Fallacy
Your most welcome, its an honor to serve those like you. In fact even though some can be a pain its still an honor serving those like eldensword, whose silly beliefs give me reason to laugh but whose lives are still very much invaluable

@jaygott12
I know how we may feel about how science and religion tend to explain the universe and we get conflicting views but its important to note that definitive answers do come from science and they are brilliant and beautiful to look at. Answers like we are such a minute part of this universe, answers like Eisenstein physics are better than Newtonian physics which are better than Aristonian physics. If its absolute truth your looking for I find that something purely mythological in product. And on a side not related to this article, this research done however cool it was does not actually finally prove Eisenstein mechanics. Not only is there still a degree of ambiguity in the results that could be filled with a more exacting set of equations the observed phenomena that these metal spheres measure has been well documented and proven decades ago. This experiment does not finally 'prove' relativity, its just one more great example of it.

I believe I've got the comments to show my words are appreciated. Are yours? It's not a theory. Look above! I will continue to use "theory" and "theorize' to my heart's content, thanks. It sounds like someone had a little run-in with authority in the church and didn't like it. I am not of any church so I don't know how traumatizing that must be. I can tell you’re angry and frustrated to the point of boiling. That must really be uncomfortable. I am familiar with battlefield trauma however. Just like your example after example of science not knowing (Thank you by the way, we all know that science keeps looking only to find more questions), faith is about NOT KNOWING, NOT having physical evidence yet the strongest sense of PROOF a person could ever feel. I will continue to read and post on this site, thanks! I think science is fascinating. It's the language of God. I was really happy to spend some time on Popsci a few days back and found a lot of information, well laid out. I'll be sticking around. I'm like a foxhole...YOU may not want me, but I'm/ We are necessary. YOU may wish me away all you want but my tools keep me safe and sound. Finding faith in God is the same thing as discovering that the Earth is not flat. It takes time. What discoveries have you published again? I didn't catch that in your rant. I think I just found the topic of my next thesis though, I thank you. I'll call it Spiritual Theory. You see, since my first post I have known my audience (Some of them anyway, was surprised to hear back from some creationists woot!). Ranting and raving evolutionists, so hell-bent on proving that they are monkeys destined for eternal darkness at death’s door that they are willing to…do very bad things to people who do not go along with their ideals. You’re just boiling aye, BUDDY? I’m not. I’m having fun. I have faith in a fictional cartoon character; a science fiction based good guy, an imaginary friend, and whatever you would like to call it. I choose the single, most logical option. Believe, learn and grow my acceptance of ALL possibilities. You and Fallacy somehow think I’m closed minded. I actually believe in the plight and the perseverance of science PLUS I believe in God, so I’ve got an edge on you and an extra credit assignment that you are not able to wrap your heads around. Evolutionism ends with nothing for the individual in their death and through exploration and practice creationism usually does. There is no set or defining hell for me or Heaven for that matter. You have absolutely no idea who you are dealing with. Keep asking for more proof, why stop? You had faith but you gave it up? Because of something MAN did? Because you think faith is looking to the sky and DEMANDING proof from God, not getting it and then cursing all creation and the theory of creation? What have you done to deserve more direct proof from God than any other human being? We have all of the reality in front of us that our senses can take to show that we are intended to discuss this, to challenge it and then be open to answers that we may not like. Taste, smell, sight, hearing and touch are survival mechanisms for clawless, wingless bipeds huh? You evolved from a monkey so that you could drive your Toyota Prius to Bill Gates’ house to discuss his latest book on Global Warming? Is your life bigger than your 70 years here? Maybe Albert Einstein’s was, Tesla and Vivaldi but YOU? If you aren’t going to wow us with your next published finding and live forever in the history books, maybe check the ego and at least consider the possibility of having faith in creation. It’s a win-win, buddy. Cursing faith and the faithful is lose-lose.

@jaygott12

There's where passion got the best of me. I agree with you about seeing both sides ultimately. It was not my intention to get evangelical. I am definitely resting my case with these two and moving on.

^I like how you completely avoid responding to any logical examination of your comments.

Where's boxxy, this guy's a troll.

Logical examination on which comments would you like? Yes, please show me this boxxy. Will he be as much fun as Paradox? Oh, I'm new here! I get it, you have a little group that sits and waits for creationists to come in so you can BLAST them. That must be a really enjoyable thing for you. Please list the comments that you would like me to re-examine and review for you. I'm pretty sure I covered my faith-reward, faithless - no reward THEORY. I have not published it yet. Will post a link once I do. Oh, did you want proof of God from me? I appreciate the nod but I'm not the "faith-giver". But I think it's on the shelf, next to the proof of no God.

Again, eldensword you fail.

Fail fail and fail again. I'm amused that you find your arguments insightful and vivid. Mad? No I'm not mad I'm enthralled that there exists the sorts of your mentality who can twist and augment reality to fit their small curtained peripheral that is their faith. And I seem to be justified once more in the fact that you want to extrapolate more about my history than you are capable of.

You do have a point however one of which is almost deserving of a dignified mention, that religion is about NOT knowing. I'll leave that one, at that

To be honest my hope that you'd leave for good has abated and now I'm interested in continually destroying whatever logic less fallacy that I come across of yours in the forum medium here on PopSci in an attempt to cleanse this site of your asinine filth of a pseudo-science.

I'm sure your RIGHT on to reading up on evolutionary theory, in which case let me know when you get to the part in which you realize your wrong about everything you currently know (as presented on this forum). I'm particularly interested in the part where you realize evolution says no such thing about the monkey/human evolutionary descendants.

If you were truly looking for the most logical answer you would have more likely chosen the answer of assumed ambiguity, in which you propose no knowledge that you can't ascertain or have yet to discover and that the knowledge you DO have can have either been misinterpreted or incomplete (You know, that of a scientist?) but instead you insist (hilariously I may add) that you some how seem to be the functioning chimera of science and religion.

I'd like to add that due to your absurd logic and fact less 'knowledge' of sciences such as evolution I personally feel the pain of the educational board who wind up with your "Thesis" in their hands. Luckily I'm almost certain that it won't be me (For that I thank the FSM)

Never does your evidence less belief in a magical man in the sky who watches children masturbate have an edge on me. I assure you whatever faulty conclusions you can generate about me or my lifestyle, my academia, or my past will not compare to the honesty of your stupidity that you've put on show for the world to pander at. If your 'appreciating audience' want to stand up for you may they please do so, it'll be enlightening for me to learn a thing or two about the validity of your presumptuous claims.

And please, if your going to try your luck at making fun of me at LEAST do me the honor of pointing out something relevant. I could go on about how you have most likely contributed nothing but dishonesty and forced loved ones around you to hear your ridiculous ferment of a scholarly incite but that would be too easy and not potent enough for my tastes. Instead I think a QED is in order, for those diligent enough to reach this far into our prose here's my proposition:

The summation of everything I have written is the exacting culmination required to not only make a fool of eldensword but to quantitatively point out his flaws and lack of knowledge. I find that he/she is lost in their own muddled mindset in which they have no desire to confront as he/she is diametrically opposed to reasoning with the outcomes of critical thinking. I also purport that reasoning and inaccuracies of this individuals arguments are jest worthy and academically infantile.

quod erat demonstrandum

Paradox and Fallacy - Two things are obvious about this Eldensword character.

First, he is trying to push your buttons and stir things up - i.e., he's a troll. He cares nothing about science. He is here merely to bash science. He holds anything which questions his pre-ordained notions in contempt, to the point where he trolls for excuses to bash anything he holds in opposition to said notions. He goes to a website called "Popular SCIENCE" to bash science in general, in favor of pure religious intolerance.

Second, he does not even understand what he is bashing. He doesn't understand the definition of any scientific theory, even when you beat him over the head with it. He certainly does not understand the "theory" of evolution. He even goes so far as to claim that you are trying to prove the nonexistance of God, when you are merely stating the scientifically-correct premise that there is no evidence for a god, clearly NOT the same claim as proof of no god. He doesn't get it. He doesn't intend to.

And now, if you continue arguing with this character, you merely prove true Twain's famous quote of arguing with fools.

This guy's a troll, folks, he has no interest in learning anything here today. Only in bashing.

@BadLiberal
Of all the things that I've learned today... I think you've just trumped them all.

@BadLiberal: See my above comment. Not only is he a troll, he's a troll with no idea of internet memes or history.

He's also very poor at debating the subject. Heels dug in.

Didn't mean to come off as condescending there folks, apologies if I did. I've just seen myself get too wrapped up in arguing with such fools as Eldensword far too many times in the past. It's frustrating to see him spouting garbage simply to make your wheels spin, and it is doubling frustrating to see your wheels spin. (By "spinning wheels", I mean acknowledging his/her presence at all and trying to talk reason, I don't mean making irrational arguments.)

Back to the issue at hand here, the implications of this experiment are incredible. I am no physicist, I can't even follow the math, but I know that the scientists who propel this science forward DO know their stuff (and openly admit to their fallacies - no pun intended). That's not faith, that's trust based on evidence. Relativity experts such as those at Wash U of St. Louis have pretty much proven their worth.

I especially love how they describe the gyroscope spheres as "nearly perfect". I'd like to see the tolerances on those "nearly perfect" spheres!

@BadLiberal: Didn't think of you as condescending, I thought of you as late to the party haha. I had already decided he was a troll. If anything I was going to be spinning his wheels. That aside, having yet more proof of Einsteins theories is going to help our civilization greatly(provided we don't get mired in another religion-centric "dark age")

@Fallacy/BadLiberal
True, I do feel as though he is spinning my wheels but I've very bad with deciding to get off the treadmill. And I didn't feel as though you were condescending at all, you made a good point and I thank you for it : )

But still... The reason why I started the dialog was because of the people who reacted to his posts with glee and acceptance and not repulsion and sneers as they should have. I doubt that any of the mislead found their way down this far but I have to admit I did have hope that someone would change their mind about empiricism and give thinking for themselves a try. Maybe I helped someone? Maybe not, but I can never really know huh? Unless someone ended up telling us lol, but I doubt that.

I like to think I've planted seeds of knowledge that will sprout in individuals inquiring enough to think about what I say, maybe not right away but perhaps years down the line some of the things we wrote will meet the eyes of an individual asking just some of the sort of questions that we answered herein lol.

Yes, BadLiberal you did come in a bit late. These two have been spinning for a couple of days now. Too much fun...

Typical

@Eldensword...hope you have a long, painful death

This is very interesting how a scientist prediction has come true in reality.Here I remember Russian scientist Mendelev who predicted an element having certain properties in mendelev table and it came to be true.This is really fascinating. I want to have more clear answer where does the vortex lies? on top of artic pole or antarctic pole or above some equator.not so clear. And as the article says that a weighty body like a planet or a star depresses the fabric, like someone sitting on a chair, this mean our earth have weight downward below antarctic pole, and all the gallaxy weight downward. This implies there is a tremendous body below our universe which is having gravitation pull on our universe.Is it so?Further, the drift of axis of gyro is 0.041 arc second over a year. which mean we can calculate how many twist has been done by the space-time fabric since the earth has come into existence.Does It mean that there is record of time capsule?

@Anata
General Relativity implies that Space-Time is stretched/warped/obfuscated however you want to look at it in ALL directions emanating outward from all points of mass. The 'weighed down effect' that the earth has on the universe is in a perfect situation a spherical one. However the earth does rotate and with the irregularities of its mass so therefore so does space-time along with it. There is no 'vortex' per say and the beach chair analogy can only be used so much until it no longer pertains to the science, what they meant was that space-time warps itself under mass and not that space-time was a pseudo surface conforming to the dome under or above the planet.

The space-time fabric is more like a giant vat of liquid rubber than it is a beach chair (Even that analogy can only go so far). There is no way to 'unravel' the twists as they do not compile over time, merely shift. The closest I can get to coming up with an example for your fabric-twist concept would be gravitational waves emanated from pulsars and solar automata like it. Even if the universe did 'twist' and 'turn' like fabric under our seats they emanate from us at the speed of light! That would be pretty hard to indirectly observe and accurately record time tables for the history of our minute little planet! But keep up the inquiring mind, maybe someday you’ll come across something new for all of us : )

Parad0x13...thanks for the informative post, the trampoline analogy is a simple way for laymen to wrap their heads around space time, but this also creates a problem, most people can't get past the 2-dimentional picture, as you state this is actually an infinite amount of trampolines wrapped around the earth, the warp in spacetime is actually a bubble around our planet, being a laymen myself i hope this is correct and helpful

I also appreciate the analogies, as another non-physicist. I definitely have problems getting my head around this stuff.

One thing which I have come to suspect as of late is that this relativity stuff (along with quantum mechanics) is all-or-nothing: you either understand the math, or you have a hard time getting it at all. Analogies are somewhat helpful in relaying part of the "what" - but without the math, you don't get all of the "what" (at the very best, you get an incomplete model), and virtually none of the "why" (i.e., the mathmatical proof). Without the math, the analogies seem downright paradoxal, making it all that much harder to get a grip on it. Plus the fact that said analogies are only partially applicable, as demonstrated by the whole vortex discussion above. I suspect that these analogies, in their proper reference, begin to make sense once one has a firm grasp of the math. I for one certainly do not.

Either way, I appreciate the efforts of Parad0x13 and Fallacy to explain this stuff to us uninitiated.

When I first studied relativity it took days to actually understand the analogies, then weeks to ascertain enough information to apply them in any fashionable sense. Even though I don't have a working knowledge of the equations (Tensor calculus is still beyond me) understanding time dilation and black hole event horizons really gave me some good incites. For those interested in brushing up on their special/general relativity without any prior formal education on the subject I recommend:
"The Elegant Universe"
and/or
"The Fabric of the Cosmos"
Both by Brian Greene

He puts some really great analogies that I could relate to, specifically examples from the Simpsons TV show lol

Too often I come across people who are perhaps a bit timid about their own ability and aptitude to learn about the higher end of science, but let me put it this way.

Without ever knowing addition, we would never understand multiplication. Yes, sometimes the steps to the goal of understand may seem daunting, but once we've conquered them we can appreciate how they function to further our own understanding. There's a reason for the saying "baby steps". As well, I wonder to myself whether or not people are thinking of physics and completely excluding their own intuition. Physics is a very natural thing that we all start learning at a very young age, we just don't see the math until high school or college. Think about throwing a ball, something I'm sure we've all done since childhood without much issue. Now think of all of the physics involved in getting that ball from our position to the desired target. You're overcoming inertia, gravity, wind resistance, and much much more. Most everyone takes that for granted though.

I feel I must respectfully disagree (to an extent) with the statements of Parad0x and Eldensword, though only to certain extents. I am myself a Christian, but, for the sake of scientific (and more importantly, provable) debate, I will only address the science-oriented parts of my own beliefs. I recognize that your knowledges most likely supersede my own on the grounds of physics, and I will respectfully bow to you in areas in which I am lacking in knowledge, and ask for correction in areas in which I misinterpret or misstate information. I attempt, in my own way, to convert scientific progressions to evidence in favor of the existence of a higher being.

Primarily, I focus on the ideas of the Big Bang, and the irreducible complexity of the universe.

The concept of cause and effect states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's 3rd law, I believe.) ON the terms of the Big Bang, I view it as the reaction, which raises the question "What caused it?" Now, I personally view this "causer" as god, or, at least, a higher being of some kind, being as I have no compelling evidence to verify the sovereignty and absolutely undeniable existence of my God as compared to the gods and deities of other religions.

Anyway, the entire concept of cause and effect has the flaw that all actions need a cause. I could ask you "Where did humans come from?" to which you might respond "apes (or some other monkey-like species)." I would then ask from where the apes came, and this chain would continue back and back, to single celled organisms, and then to amino acids (or whatever other evolutionary theory you prefer.) I ask where the amino acids came from, and continue the chain back to the Big Bang, to which I ask "What caused the Big Bang?" Science has, at the present, been unable to develop an adequate answer to this question. Now, I believe that the answer is an uncaused cause, a creator, an entity existing outside the confines of space and time. However, being as it is impossible to prove this belief, I shall leave it at mere personal conjecture.

Now, my understanding of evolutionary theories is pretty shaky, so please bear with me. In natural selection, individual parts of the body change and develop in order for the organism to be better suited to its environment. However, in order for certain body parts to come into existence, others would have had to be present. For example, lets look at the human eye. Each mechanism in the eye requires all of the others for functionality, which therefore suggests that all the parts developed at the same time, within the same generation. This holds true with the brain and the heart, both of which require the other for operation. Digging deeper, in an individual cell, each organelle requires the existence and functionality of all the other organelles for its own functionality. So, this dependence on each other suggests a form of spontaneous creation (God's creation of the Earth and animals? You decide.)

Also, in an ecosystem, is it not true that creatures newly introduced to it (namely infant animals and plant sprouts) depend, to a certain degree, on the support of their parents, the previous generation? How would this play out in the first generation of a species, where parent and previous generations are absent? This suggests that plants and animals were first created with age (as accounted in the 7-day creation story in the Bible) and even the Earth. Young-Earth creationists argue that the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old, with which I am inclined to disagree, for there are recorded human documents from as long ago as 5,000 or 6,000 b.c., and quite obvious Human settlement as far back as 200,000 years ago. However, being as I believe the earth was created with age, this now draws into question (in terms of my argument) the accuracy of carbon and fossil dating. Since a fossil is merely the shape of pre-decomposed organic material, it is made of the sediments around it. If the materials of the Earth were truly made with age, the carbon in the materials would have already experienced a certain amount of dissipation, therefore meaning that the Earth's true age could be far less than previously believed. I've heard of an account (unverified) that states that a fossilized tree was found running upside down through millions of years worth of rock.

Jumping back to the Big Bang, the sheer chances of the overwhelming complexity of nature merely evolving into existence is almost laughable, and the previously stated idea that "nothing comes from nothing" can now be applied to my own argument. At this point, it would appear that the Big Bang, and all the matter of the universe, spawned from nowhere, without precedence. Again back to the chances, if the fundamental dynamics of the universe had been off by 1 in a hundred million million, the conditions would not have been right for life to come into existence. This ridiculously small chance of life coming into existence cannot merely be dismissed as chance, and must now be considered as something more. Perhaps an unseen, all-powerful hand orchestrated the arrangement?

Case in point, I believe that science and religious faith can indeed coincide, and that, as more is discovered on the grounds of science, more will be found that shall support the idea of a creator. With each major discovery, the complexity of the universe increases, and therefore the probability of the existence of a god becomes less laughable, and a a little more believable. Again, much of this is only my own personal conjecture, and I welcome rebuttal of any information I may have misstated, or any comments pertaining to my beliefs and statements.

Also, I apologize for the spontaneity of my assertions, I hope they are not too far off base! :)

@cspedden
I appreciate your heartfelt interest in the opinions of others be they opposing or the same as yours and from that I could assume, with what I feel to be relative high probability, that you are a sincere and honest person more than capable of an intellectual argument and more than worthy of a good response, and I hope that I can supply you with one.

As you stated early in your prose your academic understanding of evolution and its abstractions is yet incomplete and from this I see that you are making accusations about the field that are not entirely correct as I will explain. However this does not mean that your attempts at understanding evolution aren't honest or noteworthy, perhaps the only reason you don't understand the field enough is because you haven't deliberated long enough. I think your more than capable of ascertaining said curriculum.

You mention irreducible complexity in a sort of straight forward way implying that the topic is a defacto 'truth' about the universe, in which case I would ask you to sincerely rethink your assumption that the universe is indeed irrevocably complex. This argument which has been purported by many creation scientists has been debunked for quite some time. I will list at the bottom of my reply a series of videos from youtube that I suggest watching (In your free time of course, and with no hurry or pressure) that I found to be great examples of 'layman' examinations of the described topics.

The concept of cause and effect is an observed phenomena of our physical environment, dictated by the seemingly unwavering effect of the laws of physics as we know them. When we describe theoretical happenstance in which we have not accurately recorded or replicated (Such as the Big Bang or implications of hyper stretched strings in the string theory model) we must examine them with the current level of physics that we have and extrapolate the best we can. For example in one branch of string theory the big bang can be explained as the collision of two high energy 4 physical dimensional strings. Of course comes the problem of where did this higher dimensional field originate from and ad infinitum the argument continues that there had to be an origin to everything in all of its manifestations. I don't suspect anyone would view the information presented above as resolution to the initial cause debate, just as good-to-know information that perhaps you didn't know existed before (To expand your big-bang-theory knowledge bank). The naked truth about the argument (and quite reasonably why it persists) is that we don't know if there was an initial cause or what it happen to be. Humans find it difficult to cull the sensation of accepting that there is something we have yet to know/understand. Too often we find simple emotionally quelling arguments to give 'incite' as to why things are the way they are. Like (as I presented in earlier posts) that Lightning was the wrath of god and not electromotive forces. Or that the earth was a series of turtles upon turtles and not an, unbeknownst at the time, time-space field propagating physically in 3 spacial dimensions operated upon by one noticeable time dimension. As we progressed in science we found these things out and added to our repertoire of empirical-knowledge. I find grand similarities between assuming the universe had a creator of some sort intelligent or otherwise and that of assumptions made when evidence has yet to become available. Perhaps the universe is in some way physically self manifesting, perhaps it was created by a non-deistic force. The fact that we don't yet know this information with any certainty means that to assert a belief in any one possibility is proposing that you have information nobody else has, and this goes for those who aren't religious too. When a scientist says the big bang had a high probability of happening this one certain way he has the entire knowledge and recordings of science to back him up. He can explain why he thinks it was that way and derive that logic from observable phenomena from our physical reality. However when a religious person, such as yourself and many many others, say that there is a high probability that a god created the universe there unfortunately happens to be no observable evidence for those claims. Is it possible? Everything's "possible", but is it probable?

In your paragraph on how evolution as it is followed backwards leads to the inconclusive argument for existence I would like to correct you on a few things, then hit real quickly on the concept of being content with the 'we just don't know yet' mentality. Nowhere in evolution does the theory state humans came from monkeys, this is a misrepresentation from what it actually states is a high probability in which Homo Sapiens evolved from a mammal which certain physical and mental characteristics with which the ape spectrum and the human spectrum diverged. Much like how it also states that humans and rabbits are on the same evolutionary tree, albeit very separated. You jest that in the evolutionary theory(s) there happens to be differentiations betwixt certain 'types' of evolution. There are no 'types' of evolution, there is just evolution. All the references you made to include single celled organisms and amino acids have their place in the theory, which is unified as an entire topology of the science. To say that the universe having a cause of an 'uncaused cause' is poetic, however almost hypocritical at the same time, whereas that answer would not find credence if it were applied scientifically by either the scientific or religious sects. More or less, what if science claimed the universe had an uncaused cause, which just happened to be a random explosion that was not predated by anything? Would the religious argument loose its integrity, would the scientific explanation be acceptable now? I would say no on both accounts. The integrity of religious arguments aren't to be rated scientifically as they would utterly fail, and the integrity of scientific claims aren't to be rated upon how possible they sound without presented evidence. Basically what it boils down to is: "If you can use that argument, why can't we?" but in many more (hopefully) revealing words. I do acknowledge this to be a personal conjecture of yours, but it is perceived to be much more than conjecture to others with a more radical view of creationism, thus the intent deliberation herein.

You state that for a body part to come to existence others would have needed to precede it, thus starting the initial cause again and apparently providing credence to IC (Irreducible Complexity). However logical this may sound it is demonstratively incorrect. I'll provide media at the end to justify this claim. It will go over both your eye example and that of the often used bacterial flagellum argument too. As well as some others such as the mousetrap and watchmaker analogies.

I understand your fears for the validity of fossil dating as it seems not to mesh with your understanding of the age of the planet vis a vis the biblical creation story. A nice explanation of one form of carbon dating can be found here:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html
It does over the caveats of the system and reinforces the validity of the science. This is however just a single account and I do not encourage you to accept this as it is just a single source. I apologize that I am unable to offer more resources right now as my wife wants me to shower and go to bed and it is getting quite late already. I will have to reconvene on this elaborate topic later. I do apologize. The trees that you make a reference to are a great introduction to the field of other types of 'old age' dating and a brief description of the science can be found on its Wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrified_wood
I know wikipedia is notorious for its mal-represented information, but using that link I encourage further research on the topic elsewhere on the internet. Perhaps I will leave more information on petrified wood here later too, again I apologize.

I would pertly disagree with you on the laughable-ness of the chances for long term evolution on the grounds of my understanding of how evolution can function over such vast periods of time. I do recommend Charles Darwin's book "The Origins of Species" for a very detailed microscopic look into evolution with its claims and validations. I also politely disagree with your statistic that if the universe had changed its properties by such a minute amount that the universe we know today would not have been possible or that life could not have developed. I (not knowing your credentials) will make an educated guess and say that not only you, but nobody to date can make the assumption that our universe is the only possible one with the predisposition to support life or that any minute change in the laws of physics or any filtered cause from changes in initial conditions would have diminished the possibility of life supporting physics. I also politely point out that due to the ambiguity of your statistics as well as the lack of supporting reference materials shows that the statistics you've described are unsupported and baseless. I do not say that as an insult, please don't take it that way. I speak to you entirely different than how I speak to eldensword, I merely wish to get a point across.

Because of the explanation I've presented I continue to disagree that science and religion are compatible, and I also disagree that scientific discoveries will support any type of religious philosophy because of this. I would disagree with you (again politely) and say that with every discovery made the universe does become more of an enigma, but its complexity does not always increase. I would also say that the belief in something is never proper reasoning to make a validated claim as a belief is the acceptance of something without supporting evidence.

However it has been a joy to respond to you, and I look forward to your comments. Please take care, and I wish you good health.

Experiment on Irreducible Complexity fallacy using the Blind Watchmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
Evolution of Bacterial Flagellum vice Irreducible Complexity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w
Great explanation of Irreducible Complexity with wonderful animations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=related

I thank you Parad0x for the corrections in my misstated information, and for the advice for strengthening my own understanding of the concepts mentioned. I will not be able to peruse the videos immediately, as I have finals for which to study (yes, I am still in school,) however, I find their topics of particular interest, and look forward to enjoying them at my leisure. As you debate for the side of pure science, I shall continue to debate for my science-religion hybrid, if such a thing is truly capable of existence.
Many Christians (and other religious zealots) are perfectly content with the poetic yet vague answers of the Bible, but I, being a logical thinker, feel I must hunt down the answers, and science, in its ever-increasing grandeur, appears irresistible in the sense of closure it provides in its logical and complete answers to one of my biggest questions "How does the universe work, and how was it made?". The answers have come far since their ancient conception from time immemorial, but it still has much yet to be answered, and the questions may never be answered completely. As you stated, " Humans find it difficult to cull the sensation of accepting that there is something we have yet to know or understand," and this sense is troubling to say the least, though acceptable in that it may someday be quelled, and the answers provided. I suppose the true difficulty in understanding lies with the concept of infinity. Out finite human brains, despite our best efforts, are unable to comprehend the infinite , and may never be able to.

To be honest, the more minor details of the age of the Earth and even evolution are of little concern to my in my religious beliefs, considering the Bible never references either. The 7-day creation account may have taken place after Earth had existed for billions of years, or the days themselves may be metaphorical, and actually represent millions of years. If it turns out that the Earth's age, without a shadow of a doubt, is 4 billion years old, or even that mankind evolved from some primitive creature, I would not be overly shaken, for these are insignificant, and as science has irrefutably proved its validity, I would have no excuse (other than stubborn ignorance) to ignore it any longer. I'm what you might call a liberal Christian, or what my fellow Christians might call too lax, or even a non-believer (in some of the more stringent religious circles.)

The bottom line is, my primary concern is scientific fact, and I shall clearly separate personal opinion from such.

Again, I thank you for the articles and videos, and when I look them over in greater detail, I shall again respond to you, though it may be some time until then. I have enjoyed reading your comments thus far, and look forward to future conversations with so knowledgeable a person as yourself, for you are truly a rare breed in today's society. I wish you well in health and in mind.

wow. after reading some of these comments i shake my head that humanity. i cant believe people are still living in the stone-age. not even the dark age. these people are so simple minded that they cant accept truth. and i must admit although i sometimes want to disagree with science there is always data to back it up. Religious nuts get me mad the most but we must learn to deal with them. sort of like dealing with mentally disabled people. just ignore their nonsense. hope we learn how to get along someday before its to late.

@Eldensword......really liked your posts, they were very insightful, thank you.

Thanks cspedden! Glad your interested in learning and applying the sciences without injecting your faith into the results. The only thing I don't particularly jive with is the that you suspect I'll continue thinking science and religion are incompatible. Honestly I'll change my mind, given sufficient reasoning. I presented what I thought would be sufficient reasoning to argue they are incompatible, however it seems not to have been enough and so I'll continue to research the sciences and include what information I can on this thread to you and anyone interested enough to learn about it with me.

And to Aldron... Lol, apparently you haven't actually READ anything he or I wrote since you still come up with that conclusion. My bets say you can't even explain one thing eldersword said that you actually found insightful.

Trolls feeding trolls? Well if I'd known about that earlier I could have kept my food!

Paradox i have nothing to prove :-) Science is God's laughter though, and you are the clown.

Science is my "faith". Believe without prove is a right everyone has, but, please, don't try to impose your religious beliefs to other people. This is not a dictatorship!

Note: Please excuse for my poor english, but I think I made my point clear

alright this is the first comment that I have made on a popular science forum, however I have been an avid reader for years. i am both a man of God, AND a man of science. this is my personal choice, however it is a choice that i have made outside of the context of science and i shall leave it that way. while i dont agree with many of the things that a lot of people say, i will not come here and express my opinion on a topic that is clearly not needed. i have read each and every comment on this page, and respect everyone's side. i enjoy reading the discussions after each article because there are a lot of brilliant people that come on here (paradox, fallacy, cspedden, even eldensword). but ive grown very tired of reading religious arguments simply because they always boil down to "im right, your wrong, deal with it". so please, keep it to yourself. eldensword, you started off being pretty rational but you found it hard to compete with the intelligence of paradox and fallacy, and thats when it went downhill for and you just started to make yourself and your fellow believers look foolish. paradox and fallacy, while your words were eloquent, there were times where your maturity seemed to be lacking (likely due to frustration, im sure). i am glad that eldensword spoke the way he did though. not because i wanted to come on to this scientific site to read about religion, but because your remarks and your persistance evoked parodox and fallacy into sharing a far greater deal of their knowledge with us. just remember guys, this is a comments section, not a debate section. there is no "winning" and "losing" here so there is no need to bother being superior to any other. thank you all for a stimulating read as it seems that popular science has lately been focusing more on how many articles they have rather than the amount of content they have for each article.

on a more related note, i still dont want to jump for joy that we just proved relativity. i still have my doubts.

"It required new innovations along the way, including technology that can reduce drag, temperature fluctuations and magnetic influences on orbiting satellites." --To me, this kind of says that there are still factors affecting the system. they REDUCED the effects at which the sattellite was affected. with such a small amount geodedic precession, any number of factors could have affected these spheres. im just starting the study of quantum physics and relativity, but i just dont think we've closed the book yet. remember: we still dont KNOW what gravity is, we still dont KNOW what mass is or what it is caused by, we still dont KNOW how big our universe is or if there are even more than one, we dont KNOW what the fundamental unit of all matter is... its all just theory

"Your feet rest comfortably on the ground due to a force in which we cannot calculate, replicate or comprehend: Wrong, wrong, and wrong. We can very accurately measure gravity (That's what this thread is about!), we can replicate it (Gravity tractors for asteroids), and we can comprehend it just fine (Gravity is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them 'Weird Al Yankovic')"

--no, i do not agree with you parody. we measure gravity's effect on objects with mass to ascertain an empirical value of its "strength". we cannot and have not calculated what gravity TRULY is. we have not replicated gravity either. gravity tractors do NOT replicate gravity in any way. gravity tractors simply use gravity to slowly move an asteroid off its intended trajectory. how can we replicate something (gravity) if we do not even know what causes it? isnt this article about the comprehension of gravity? general relativity tries to (or does) explain gravity, and this article tries to confirm general relativity. however we have only confirmed that the spin on four spheres change. we do not KNOW what this means for certain. i feel like so many people have no idea what to think that the even the slightest bit of confirmation on one belief will cause people to automatically believe it to be true. (example: after many tests, the existance of the higgs boson has yet to be proven. Fermilab says that they saw hints of what might have been the "God particle", and tevitron jumped on this and promptly told everyone that they showed hints of the particle as well. but think of this; if they have yet to discover it, then they have yet to study it, which means that no one really knows if the discovery of the higgs boson will actually prove anything).) all i'm saying is that people are getting antsy to shout "mission accomplished" <-- :p and i for one am going to be very careful and very thorough with what i choose to believe concerning quantum physics and relativity

i dont know how close we are to figuring any of this out, or if we ever will figure it out. but its exciting to try and the research will likely trickle down to effect the average citizen in a positive way.

here is the way i ultimately look at it:

God does not sit in a chair manipulating everything that happens in space. He is not holding our feet on the ground and keeping the stars in orbit. when He created the universe, He made it how it is and put mechanisms in place to keep it that way. we humans are trying to pursue the knowledge, the existance, and the effects of these mechanisms. so, from my point of view, His mechanisms are the same whether or not i am talking to someone who doesnt believe that He is the one that put them in place. i will not argue with anyone the existance of God, however i will have a healthy conversation with anyone who would like to isolate these mechanisms from the creator and simply talk about their extrinsic value to us humans.

So, NASA is going back to the Moon. I find it hard to believe that they are using the moon to evaluate the esoteric properties of gravity, or how it impacts and deforms the gravitational field around the earth. More probably it has to do with examining its suprisingly low density and the circular, non-eliptical orbit the moon mysteriously performs around the earth. It is well-known that the Moon is essentially "hollow' and that it exhibits puzzling properties which have led many to suggest that the Moon is an artifical satelite, which has been PLACED in orbit around our planet. Even more interesting would be for NASA to release classified information regarding the enormous structures which have been photographed on its surface and explain exactly WHY manned flights were discontinued following Apollo 17. I am curious if such disclousure would confirm many suspicions that we, as a race, were "warned-off", admonished in no uncertain terms not to return by the entities of non-terrestrial origin.

E=Total[m(1 + D)]

Updated Definition Of Gravity

Per the above E,m,D relationship the essence/definition of gravity is:

Gravity Is Reconversion Of Energy To Mass

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2011/09/21/the-lhc-chases-its-tail/

Spacetime???

EOTOE, Some Implications (2)

This equation describes the presently expanding universe:

E=Total[m(1 + D)] D = distance travelled by mass since singularity

This equation describes the future contracting universe:

E=Total[m(1 - D)] D = distance travelled by mass since end of expansion

Implications:

The base units of mass - may be designated gravitons but MUST have mass - are not temporal,
they never disappear.

In the present expanding universe they are in motion as mD away from the singularity point.
Those of them that hit a whatever mass format and move it become inert. This will go on until
all or nearly all of them cease moving forward, i.e. until D ceases growing.

When D ceases growing gravitation will overcome the inertial motion away from the singularity
point and will start pulling them back towards it. It is then that -D will replace +D , to maintain
the equation’s equality…

And MORE, MUCH MORE:

The rational commonsensical, and therefore scientifically probable, implication is that Space is
Imbued with these massed gravitons that are continuously left behind during Expansion…

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)
http://universe-life.com/
http://universe-life.com/2011/10/07/eotoe-some-implications-i/

@Voices 1776 Your post is hilarious. You ignorantly assume scientist think Gravity comes from an Iron core? Or perhaps you're confused with the Electromagnetic field that scientists believe come from an iron core, or the spin of an iron core rather. I am a student of Astrophysics at the University of Washington. I'm about to finish undergraduate and go into graduate school and I can assure you, your comment is completely illogical. I'm not sure what gives you the right to say scientists are stubborn, are you yourself a scientist? Probably not which makes your comment insensible and it bares no merit or purpose. And if you are, you're one close-minded and profoundly ignorant one. You make it seem like space is so basic, when really it isn't.

PS: Why don't you take the stick out of your ass while you're at it too, Voice.

I, too, have decided to register here and join some active discussions.

First of all, it's nice that they finally proved that gravity is an effect on space-time and not a field on its own, although many scientists were already using this as an accepted theory.

Second, and this is why I'm mainly posting, though I prefer to remain away from questions of faith (as I prefer not to cause accidental offence). I respect whatever views one may have of what or who controls/made the Universe/Multiverse. However, you can't say definitely that it IS a work of God because of a book, nor can you say it isn't, unless you can prove it scientifically.

I am personally an atheist. Before anyone misunderstands that term, it means I do not believe in any gods, but not that I say they don't exist. Faith gives religions and gods power in my opinion, at least for some. I prefer to think that I achieved what I have by my own skill, not a superior being's help.

To end this, a quote from Professor Stephen Hawking, who is probably one of the leading physicists nowadays: "What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." View that as you wish. I will refrain from commenting in this topic again.

To finish, I hope more such theories will be proved in the future. I trust scientists won't make the mistake of saying something too soon though, that never comes out well. (Hawking's bets, anyone?)

(This is not spam, Mr. Site.)