A terrific illustration of how ill-equipped "common sense" (as some folks refer to it) is to deal with extraordinary circumstances, is the idea that time can pass at different rates for two observers who moving in relation to each other. This seems laughable. It runs counter to our every experience and our everyday understanding. Time is time, if you are on a train, or in Brazil, in the car or wherever. However, if you ignore this real, measurable effect - relativity - you cannot have a Satnav system such as we enjoy today. It's worth reiterating this point - for the sake of balanced argument.
There was also the experiment where two atomic clocks were synchronised and one put on a jumbo jet and flow around the world, when they were compared again they were different to an amount agreeing with Special Relativity. However, again to put my pedant hat on, there is no such thing as time or space, there is only space time.
So the great one in the sky did it, he designed and built everything and created us in his image. Where the fek was he for the first 4.5 billion years or 99.99999% of earths existance. 13.7 billion years actually if he got the contract to build the whole estate. Unless, of course you follow the "earth is 6000 years old" "theory" . If ever there was a misuse of the term that has got to be it.
It's not surprising that women are second rate and shouldn't really be bishops. After all, they are just made out of second-hand ribs.
Exige, Antoyne, Pete et al - I am not the one who "doesn't get it". Pete catagorically states "god does not exist" but can offer no positive proof of this. He expects everyone to accept it as fact. And yet he will not accept the possibility of god's existance without proof - pure hypocrisy ! Once again - I AM NOT SAYING THAT I BELIEVE GOD EXISTS. What I am saying is that I accept it is a possibility. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Maybe Pete actually is right - I accept that as a possibility too. But I am not narrow-minded enough to believe that there is only one possible answer. Why is it "ridiculous" to have an open mind? Being frightened to open your mind and accept the possibility that humans do not know everything is not proof that other people are wrong...
On the space time thing I was in the pub the other night (nothing new there) and unfortunately I'm not that far away from the Uni and my local has about the cheapest priced drinks in the area apart from being a dammed good boozer. Anyway that attracts a LOT of students filled with inflated ideas of their intelligence and fully manned up with the arrogance of yoof. So the conversation overheard (I think philosophy, definitely social science of some description) goes summit like this, Boy to Girl "See if am in ma spaceship right goin tae Alfa Centauri (sic) and then goat bak right...............gap (for effect).................you'd be dead old right and ad av only aged a day" Girl to boy "Whit???" Boy to Girl Repeats above statement Girl to Boy "Howz that then" Boy to Girl (looking self satisfied and very smug that he's so well versed in Fiziks) "Coz times different in space, right when you go tae space time slows doon" I had to leave at this point in case I sprayed my pint over the pair of them
You seem to imagine that "proof that something does not exist" is somehow equivalent to "proof that something does exist". But they are not equivalent at all; 'proof' is used with two entirely different meanings and effects. Positive proof is what establishes the real world. The lack of proof of negatives does not mean that every fantasy and hallucination is thereby immune from being called untrue.
As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong), a spaceship travelling to Alpha Centauri and back at just below the speed of light would appear to have taken about eight years, as seen by an observer remaining on Earth, but the elapse of time would be experienced as about four months by the traveller in the spaceship. So the boy was exaggerating a bit, but not too far off.
So, you lot are willing believe in science which you obviously do not understand, but are willing to believe there is no God. Do you believe in good and bad? Where does good and bad come from?
Descartes - I think therefore I am. I am a being the Universe created to understand itself. If God existed why would I need to think. God understands therefore the need for me doesnt exist. Therefore if I exist, God does not. An open mind works both ways. My mind is open to the idea of a universe where a God does not exist. Its open enough to understand that a belief in a God is foolish superstition generated by a lack of awareness or understanding of their selves. It stems from a fear of being alone and helpless within a relentless and fearsome universe. A Universe that is more nothing than it is something. This scares people but to me it is a wonder. I believe in myself and free will.
You have made an assumption here that the spacecraft was capable of near-light speed. I offer a counter-argument - the boy in question sounds to me like scooter-scum and was trying to reach Alpha Centauri on his knackered old Vespa ... so the trip would never be completed
Just because these topics fall far outside the envelope of matters which humans routinely learn to understand as a commonplace does not, however, mean that they are permanently beyond the capacity of any human to understand. First an exceptionally gifted person, a genius, moves thought into new and uncharted territory. A gradually increasing number of his colleagues begin to grasp it. Understanding spreads wider and wider. By a century later, drunk boys in pubs are discussing the ideas.
