|
Bill Nye debates Creationist Ken Ham live 2/4/2014
Lakshmi.Flavin
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 18466
By Lakshmi.Flavin 2014-02-19 16:47:31
Flavin said: It's a matter of perception. What if it isn't that the answer is known before you've made it but that you've already made that decision? Illustrate that. As is, it just looks like a weak word-game to me. Flavin said: The idea is that god exists in everything at all times past present and future. Just because you know something doesn't mean that you dictated that it would happen. Except that it does when you are the genesis of all lives, and progenitor of the test in which they are subject to. Before they are born, it is known whether or not they will pass his test. At the beginning of time, it was known that that specific individual would not pass the test. It is not a "test" when it is rigged from the start. It is not free will when your answer was known before you existed. e.g.: I literally know everything. I devise a test that I know some (see: most) of my children will fail. I punish them for that failure in the most ultimate of ways, despite knowing with absolute certainty that they will fail. Whether god knows you will fail or succeed is irrelevant. Think of it like a script that's already been written, not by god, but by everything in existence but god already has a copy of that script. So you go through life making your own choices and he already knows because in his existence he's already experienced everything there is to experience from the beginning til the end. Also, don't make this about who believes what or any of that because that's not what this is. Just providing an alternate to your little game of hey I'm going to propose this scenario, ask for an answer and then tell you you're wrong anyways lol... The analogy of how omniscience can co-exist with free will based your script example is confusing considering if a God is the Alpha and Omega and created existence as we know it, how is a script "already written", and God only ends up with a copy of the script and not the original source? He literally created everything, so he would in turn, have been the original author of said proverbial "script." and would in turn, both know AND dictate how and when something has or will occur. Also, what makes you an authority in stating that an omniscient being is actually in all tenses of time at once? (past, present, and future?) rather that simply an all-knowing entity that has always existed, presently exists, and simply understands and knows without failure how the future will pan out as the future occurs? Your describing a God as existing in all tenses at once wouldn't be possible based on how we understand the concept of time, but we are talking about a God here so what does a little thing such as a testable Law of Nature matter? Even if we are comparing something that has not nor can ever be proven vs. actual science. Omniscience as we mere humans define it is simply having the capacity to know everything that is and ever will be. It has no bearing relating to the ability of being in all forms of tense simultaneously. At least not from what I could find. I feel like you are skewing it's literal definition with some inaccurate assumptions. Let's say you do manage to find a way to explain the ability for a God to be both omniscient and provide free will (you haven't even come close by the way) A question still remains as to why a God would allow bad things to happen to people who lack the ability to avoid said bad situation regardless of the free will they possess. Such as natural disasters, genetic or hereditary illnesses etc that would require that you simply not be born in order to avoid. Yet he is a God that loves all his children. Perhaps love is used as a metaphor for hate in the Bible, rather than as its literal meaning. It is the Bible we are talking about so who knows really. So either God isn't omniscient, or he's a douchebag. Take your pick. /sigh
First off I never claimed to be the authority on omniscience... I never even claimed for this to be my own belief. I brought this up as a possible counter to Tikal's "hey guys you're wrong but I'm going to phrase it like a question and tell you you're wrong right after I ask it anyways". That being said...
I think you did misunderstand what I was trying to say. The thought being expressed was supposed to present a possibility to the thought that a god could be both omnicient (know everything) and allow free will as well. The idea that came to mind has to do with god (the christian god in this matter) is thought to be both omnicient and omnipotent, that he exists in everything in all places and at all times. This comes from being omnipotent (all powerful the ability to do anything) His omniscience, in this case, could come from that power.
To put it simply it would seeing it as god experiencing time in a different fashion. While we can only perceive pregression through time linearly god would be able to perceive it in a fashion that differs from us. Maybe the whole script metaphor was a bit confusing... I wasn't trying to say that he wasn't a part of it. Think of it more like an account of everything that's ever happened from the beginning of existence to the end. While we can only perceive it in that fashion atm... from beginning to end, it's all just one big lump for god.
Let's say you do manage to find a way to explain the ability for a God to be both omniscient and provide free will (you haven't even come close by the way) Of course I haven't. You can't prove it. I wasn't trying to. The whole god thing is faith based. All that happened here is that someone posed a question (a disengenuous one at that) and I replied with the idea that came to mind. simple as that. I find it funny that you say even if I were to find a way though that religion is still in question because god is either a or b so it sucks anyways... made me lol.
Now, again, this is not really what I believe and is just something I was thinking about when the matter was brought up. I'm not trying to skew the definition of omniscience as I said before that his omniscience is brought on by other characteristics.
Why does god let bad things happen to people? I don't know... why not? I guess the easiest way to approach it would be to travel back to the time of adam and eve and the broken covenant. You had a chance to live in a perfect world and you blew it so now you're on you're own. Who knows... Would you really want a god controlling your life anyways? Deciding your fate? to me it sounds like you wouldn't be happy unless you got to have your cake and eat it too... Give me paradise give me everything but let me live exactly as I wish regardless of what you want as well!
Whether that helps to explain what I was thinking on earlier or not... hope it does. I have to run thought might finish my post later.
[+]
Necro Bump Detected!
[58 days between previous and next post]
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 08:59:03
If your answer is known before you've made it, it is not free will. The simple fact of knowing all things at all times negates the idea of choice. It was never a choice, only an outcome. You will choose A. You are choosing A. You chose A. B was never a possibility. This is fate. It's a matter of perception. What if it isn't that the answer is known before you've made it but that you've already made that decision?
The idea is that god exists in everything at all times past present and future. Just because you know something doesn't mean that you dictated that it would happen. Simply put, time is the sequential order of the movement of matter through space. Remove either matter or space and you lose time. God is without space, and in sense is an essence. Without time you remove the ability to not know something. For example: Take out a pencil, take a good hard look at it, is there led at one end and an eraser at the other (granted you aren't holding some x-men pencil that is strange in design)? You didn't look at it and not see the eraser because he led comes first. The led can't see the eraser just like I can't see my back (very well) without a mirror or an endoplasmic reticulum without a microscope.
By fonewear 2014-04-18 09:04:40
The real question is does Bill Nye exist. Or is he a bow tie in my mind ?
If Bill Nye takes off his bow tie will he cease to exist ?
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 09:12:12
Flavin said: It's a matter of perception. What if it isn't that the answer is known before you've made it but that you've already made that decision? Illustrate that. As is, it just looks like a weak word-game to me. Flavin said: The idea is that god exists in everything at all times past present and future. Just because you know something doesn't mean that you dictated that it would happen. Except that it does when you are the genesis of all lives, and progenitor of the test in which they are subject to. Before they are born, it is known whether or not they will pass his test. At the beginning of time, it was known that that specific individual would not pass the test. It is not a "test" when it is rigged from the start. It is not free will when your answer was known before you existed. e.g.: I literally know everything. I devise a test that I know some (see: most) of my children will fail. I punish them for that failure in the most ultimate of ways, despite knowing with absolute certainty that they will fail. Whether god knows you will fail or succeed is irrelevant. Think of it like a script that's already been written, not by god, but by everything in existence but god already has a copy of that script. So you go through life making your own choices and he already knows because in his existence he's already experienced everything there is to experience from the beginning til the end. Also, don't make this about who believes what or any of that because that's not what this is. Just providing an alternate to your little game of hey I'm going to propose this scenario, ask for an answer and then tell you you're wrong anyways lol... The analogy of how omniscience can co-exist with free will based your script example is confusing considering if a God is the Alpha and Omega and created existence as we know it, how is a script "already written", and God only ends up with a copy of the script and not the original source? He literally created everything, so he would in turn, have been the original author of said proverbial "script." and would in turn, both know AND dictate how and when something has or will occur. Also, what makes you an authority in stating that an omniscient being is actually in all tenses of time at once? (past, present, and future?) rather that simply an all-knowing entity that has always existed, presently exists, and simply understands and knows without failure how the future will pan out as the future occurs? Your describing a God as existing in all tenses at once wouldn't be possible based on how we understand the concept of time, but we are talking about a God here so what does a little thing such as a testable Law of Nature matter? Even if we are comparing something that has not nor can ever be proven vs. actual science. Omniscience as we mere humans define it is simply having the capacity to know everything that is and ever will be. It has no bearing relating to the ability of being in all forms of tense simultaneously. At least not from what I could find. I feel like you are skewing it's literal definition with some inaccurate assumptions. Let's say you do manage to find a way to explain the ability for a God to be both omniscient and provide free will (you haven't even come close by the way) A question still remains as to why a God would allow bad things to happen to people who lack the ability to avoid said bad situation regardless of the free will they possess. Such as natural disasters, genetic or hereditary illnesses etc that would require that you simply not be born in order to avoid. Yet he is a God that loves all his children. Perhaps love is used as a metaphor for hate in the Bible, rather than as its literal meaning. It is the Bible we are talking about so who knows really. So either God isn't omniscient, or he's a douchebag. Take your pick. /sigh
First off I never claimed to be the authority on omniscience... I never even claimed for this to be my own belief. I brought this up as a possible counter to Tikal's "hey guys you're wrong but I'm going to phrase it like a question and tell you you're wrong right after I ask it anyways". That being said...
I think you did misunderstand what I was trying to say. The thought being expressed was supposed to present a possibility to the thought that a god could be both omnicient (know everything) and allow free will as well. The idea that came to mind has to do with god (the christian god in this matter) is thought to be both omnicient and omnipotent, that he exists in everything in all places and at all times. This comes from being omnipotent (all powerful the ability to do anything) His omniscience, in this case, could come from that power.
To put it simply it would seeing it as god experiencing time in a different fashion. While we can only perceive pregression through time linearly god would be able to perceive it in a fashion that differs from us. Maybe the whole script metaphor was a bit confusing... I wasn't trying to say that he wasn't a part of it. Think of it more like an account of everything that's ever happened from the beginning of existence to the end. While we can only perceive it in that fashion atm... from beginning to end, it's all just one big lump for god.
Let's say you do manage to find a way to explain the ability for a God to be both omniscient and provide free will (you haven't even come close by the way) Of course I haven't. You can't prove it. I wasn't trying to. The whole god thing is faith based. All that happened here is that someone posed a question (a disengenuous one at that) and I replied with the idea that came to mind. simple as that. I find it funny that you say even if I were to find a way though that religion is still in question because god is either a or b so it sucks anyways... made me lol.
Now, again, this is not really what I believe and is just something I was thinking about when the matter was brought up. I'm not trying to skew the definition of omniscience as I said before that his omniscience is brought on by other characteristics.
Why does god let bad things happen to people? I don't know... why not? I guess the easiest way to approach it would be to travel back to the time of adam and eve and the broken covenant. You had a chance to live in a perfect world and you blew it so now you're on you're own. Who knows... Would you really want a god controlling your life anyways? Deciding your fate? to me it sounds like you wouldn't be happy unless you got to have your cake and eat it too... Give me paradise give me everything but let me live exactly as I wish regardless of what you want as well!
Whether that helps to explain what I was thinking on earlier or not... hope it does. I have to run thought might finish my post later. Dear Zecilus, let us start with a world that isn't a world. Let's start with there is no scientific law. You must start with this principal because in creation you start with nothing (any creation for that matter it will all trace back to some nothing unless you believe in cyclical time in which case I give up on your brain). For you to do this with a God creator, he would set in place these laws. See where Flavin is coming from is pantheism the believe god is IN all things, the problem with this concept is how limiting it makes him. However, panENtheism is rather than God being in things things are in God, this change is a very large change because it allows for his essence to be timeless. Using my pencil analogy, with pantheism God would be in all parts of the pencil and could only see outward and be stuck with us on your moment to moment progression. With an exterior look you can see things holistically. Lastly, I would like you "science" people (since I'm a "religious" person, though I use both understandings hehe) to do some research on the understanding of time in science. It is rather flawed and makes no sense. Example: if time is linear and matter stagnant with only moving in one place, where does all the time travel talk come from? If everything follows the rules (especially time) explain black holes, white holes, the speed of light, the weight of stars, he existence of the moon (given that all theories for the moons creation would have caused it to crash into the earth long ago), etc. 5 bucks says sciences response, he haven't found (made up) a reason yet, but we will!
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 09:13:40
The real question is does Bill Nye exist. Or is he a bow tie in my mind ?
If Bill Nye takes off his bow tie will he cease to exist ? If a Bill Nye is not wearing a bow tie in a forest with nobody around, does he make a sound?
[+]
By fonewear 2014-04-18 09:14:25
If Bill Nye ceases to exist some other guy in a bow tie will replace him.
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 09:18:07
If Bill Nye ceases to exist some other guy in a bow tie will replace him. Bow ties are really another form of lifeform that Bill Nye is helping to take over the world! In the name of SCIENCE!
By fonewear 2014-04-18 09:19:11
Unless you are wearing a tuxedo I recommend not wearing bow ties.
Unless you have a balloon...
And you want to be my Science teacher...
[+]
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 09:22:28
Unless you are wearing a tuxedo I recommend not wearing bow ties.
Unless you have a balloon...
Looks like a grape flavored condom to me... could be wrong, I think I've seen that episode of prostitutes in their natural habitat!
Ragnarok.Sekundes
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4189
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-04-18 10:02:05
Lastly, I would like you "science" people (since I'm a "religious" person, though I use both understandings hehe) to do some research on the understanding of time in science. It is rather flawed and makes no sense. Example: if time is linear and matter stagnant with only moving in one place, where does all the time travel talk come from? If everything follows the rules (especially time) explain black holes, white holes, the speed of light, the weight of stars, he existence of the moon (given that all theories for the moons creation would have caused it to crash into the earth long ago), etc. 5 bucks says sciences response, he haven't found (made up) a reason yet, but we will! Are you talking about relative time here? Because there is exceptionally solid science behind this, relative time is a thing. It isn't so much "Time Travel" as it is looking at time from different perspectives. But if not accounting for this difference, our GPS satellites would be wrong and unusable withing about an hour.
I'm no expert in any other forms of "Time Travel" and as far as I know it's all speculation based on what if's. I personally believe it isn't possible and I don't think there is any valid science to any of it, at least not yet. There's plenty of possibilities but the answer is that we don't know.
Theories for the origin of the moon vary but what about them makes you think it would have fallen out of orbit and crashed? I'm feeling a lack of understanding of orbital mechanics here. Perhaps you can elaborate on your issues with in and maybe I may know enough to explain it.
As for rules, we watch the environment and guess what a rule is by what we see. That means that while some rules with heavy evidence are unlikely to be wrong, they may be missing certain aspects, ones that we just don't have enough information on to have realized yet or developed the technology to see. Other rules are guesses with no contradicting evidence. These rules are best guesses that could need to be modified vastly.
The scientific method dictates that we observe, hypothesize then watch more to see if our guess holds up. If it does then we say, okay this looks pretty solid, and if rigorous testing still holds for a long time, we may make that idea in to a law. But even laws can be changed. This means that we may have a misunderstanding of something or have giant holes in the explanations but until we get more observations and more experiments, we can't conclude anything else.
The difference between science and religion is that religion is based on faith that something is true. It is the starting and the end point. There is no need to go hunting for answers because you believe you have them already. If evidence suggests something isn't true, then it is ignored, explained away or covered up.
In science, faith is simply a starting point. One that gives you a place to work from as you test to prove and disprove and discover until those discoveries lead you to truth. When evidence suggests something isn't true, then we look at it, test it and if it continues to hold up, we amend our thoughts about the subject to match the new knowledge. This does not mean that we just make ***up to prove what we want to be right. Sure we make up hypotheses to explain our world but then they are either tested or are eventually subjected to supporting evidence or contradicting evidence and are given weight or thrown out.
[+]
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-04-18 10:20:16
Technically speaking, the moon is falling toward earth. However, it's also moving in a plane across the earth, which is why it is in orbit.
fun fact, the moon is actually moving away from us.
As for "time travel", it's something of a misnomer. time and space are interwoven, that's the basis of Einstein's general relativity. You can't travel through space without traveling through time. But, time is relative, as you go faster in relation to an object, your perception of time slows. It is possible to move forward and backward in time relative to an object by changing your speed. Larger jumps than that are only theoretical but are plausible. That involves a theoretical folding of spacetime, which we have no real way of exploring due to our lack of understanding of the relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
all of these things are based on the methodology of science, you observe a process, hypothosize what's happening, test your hypothesis, make conclusions based on your findings, and rinse/repeat until your hypothesis matches the findings. Then others will test your hypothesis to determine if it is repeatable, consistent, and correct. Only after it cannot be disproven does it become scientific theory. The first time it is disproven, it's no longer the theory and is either modified or scrapped.
I do find it pretty hilarious that a "person of faith" can make statements like "if you believe in cyclical time, something is wrong with your brain" as there is more plausible evidence for cyclical time than for any of that Genesis nonsense.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-04-18 10:30:37
I'd be more interested if possible to live through a black hole.
I would take Philosophical questions over Science any day though.
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-04-18 10:32:49
If Bill Nye ceases to exist some other guy in a bow tie will replace him.
Ham is already on the record saying nothing could ever shake his faith thus he is a waste of time like the other wastes of time running around the desert blowing ***up to summon their primals gods.
If you can't have an open mind because it interferes in the existence of your God then you've already lost. One side is willing to change their worldview based on evidence and the other cries for more faith when the walls of an illusory reality begin to warp and crumble.
[+]
By fonewear 2014-04-18 10:39:19
My bow tie is spinning your argument is invalid.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-18 10:53:22
Oh look a person who relies on faith talking about facts and logic, how cute.
Ragnarok.Sekundes
Server: Ragnarok
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4189
By Ragnarok.Sekundes 2014-04-18 10:57:03
I'd be more interested if possible to live through a black hole.
I would take Philosophical questions over Science any day though. With what we know so far? No, not even remotely possible. You'd be ripped to tiny bits by the tidal forces before you even got close.
YouTube Video Placeholder
By fonewear 2014-04-18 10:58:19
What about a grey hole ?
VIP
Server: Odin
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2014-04-18 10:59:38
I'd be more interested if possible to live through a black hole.
I would take Philosophical questions over Science any day though.
How close you can get depends largely on the size of the black hole, but passing "through" is basically impossible as it's not actually a "hole". It's a singular point of infinitesimal density.
By fonewear 2014-04-18 11:01:23
So it would be sorta like watching anime ? It would suck a lot.
By Jetackuu 2014-04-18 11:01:24
Have they managed to see what happens if multiple black holes get close enough together to act upon eachother yet?
I really should study up on this more, it greatly intrigues me...
Maybe I should switch my field of studies, but the bad part is I'm really lazy...
By Jetackuu 2014-04-18 11:01:51
So it would be sorta like watching anime ? It would suck a lot. You're obviously watching the wrong anime.
[+]
Bismarck.Keityan
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 323
By Bismarck.Keityan 2014-04-18 11:02:21
I would take Philosophical questions over Science any day though.
The two are extremely inter-linked and I'd like to see your standpoint of why this is so.
By fonewear 2014-04-18 11:04:25
Well Philosophy to me is more intriguing. Maybe years of having bad Science teachers left me that way.
I did have a good Astronomy teacher. When I was asking about black holes I was saying in theory if you could survive. What would be on the other side of a black hole ?
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-04-18 11:13:04
I don't think you can survive falling into a black hole when your atoms are stretched out into a thin line of spaghetti. Science can actually tell you these things.
Valefor.Mithano
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 541
By Valefor.Mithano 2014-04-18 11:14:56
I did have a good Astronomy teacher. When I was asking about black holes I was saying in theory if you could survive. What would be on the other side of a black hole ?
There is no other side - and you're not going to live. As you approach, the gravity will literally tear you apart. Beyond that, at the center of a black hole is where all the mass is crunched together, and you'd just get added to that. Your entire body would be smooshed down to something the size of a pinhead (actually much less).
Bismarck.Ihina
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3187
By Bismarck.Ihina 2014-04-18 11:16:52
Much, much less than a pinhead.
Valefor.Sehachan
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-04-18 11:17:28
Do you need sunglasses on the sun?
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 11:22:21
Ragnarok.Sekundes said: » Lastly, I would like you "science" people (since I'm a "religious" person, though I use both understandings hehe) to do some research on the understanding of time in science. It is rather flawed and makes no sense. Example: if time is linear and matter stagnant with only moving in one place, where does all the time travel talk come from? If everything follows the rules (especially time) explain black holes, white holes, the speed of light, the weight of stars, he existence of the moon (given that all theories for the moons creation would have caused it to crash into the earth long ago), etc. 5 bucks says sciences response, he haven't found (made up) a reason yet, but we will! Are you talking about relative time here? Because there is exceptionally solid science behind this, relative time is a thing. It isn't so much "Time Travel" as it is looking at time from different perspectives. But if not accounting for this difference, our GPS satellites would be wrong and unusable withing about an hour.
I'm no expert in any other forms of "Time Travel" and as far as I know it's all speculation based on what if's. I personally believe it isn't possible and I don't think there is any valid science to any of it, at least not yet. There's plenty of possibilities but the answer is that we don't know.
Theories for the origin of the moon vary but what about them makes you think it would have fallen out of orbit and crashed? I'm feeling a lack of understanding of orbital mechanics here. Perhaps you can elaborate on your issues with in and maybe I may know enough to explain it.
As for rules, we watch the environment and guess what a rule is by what we see. That means that while some rules with heavy evidence are unlikely to be wrong, they may be missing certain aspects, ones that we just don't have enough information on to have realized yet or developed the technology to see. Other rules are guesses with no contradicting evidence. These rules are best guesses that could need to be modified vastly.
The scientific method dictates that we observe, hypothesize then watch more to see if our guess holds up. If it does then we say, okay this looks pretty solid, and if rigorous testing still holds for a long time, we may make that idea in to a law. But even laws can be changed. This means that we may have a misunderstanding of something or have giant holes in the explanations but until we get more observations and more experiments, we can't conclude anything else.
The difference between science and religion is that religion is based on faith that something is true. It is the starting and the end point. There is no need to go hunting for answers because you believe you have them already. If evidence suggests something isn't true, then it is ignored, explained away or covered up.
In science, faith is simply a starting point. One that gives you a place to work from as you test to prove and disprove and discover until those discoveries lead you to truth. When evidence suggests something isn't true, then we look at it, test it and if it continues to hold up, we amend our thoughts about the subject to match the new knowledge. This does not mean that we just make ***up to prove what we want to be right. Sure we make up hypotheses to explain our world but then they are either tested or are eventually subjected to supporting evidence or contradicting evidence and are given weight or thrown out. I don't think you are grasping that time is not a thing like temperature is not a thing; it is simply the outcome of an interaction. Also your definition of religion is based on what people are doing with not what it is capable of, I would say religion is just a philosophy centered on a god that can be practiced in life. So that practice can look something very similar to science, it would be like mixing a monastery mixed with a science lab in my book. And with what you said about scientific theory, yes you are very correct. Theories are often missing pieces of the puzzle that cannot be explained and end up relying on faith just as much as religion. The concept of faith came before our understanding of religion, we are constantly having faith in things, in each other even. The difference I try and give it a name that's all. God in my book isn't much different than the definition of destiny it just has a form of entity.
By fonewear 2014-04-18 11:24:34
Do you need sunglasses on the sun?
Only if they are Ray Ban.
Shiva.Tedril
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 509
By Shiva.Tedril 2014-04-18 11:26:51
I don't think you can survive falling into a black hole when your atoms are stretched out into a thin line of spaghetti. Science can actually tell you these things. Because they just hang out with black holes on the daily.
|
|