Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike on June 15, 2009 at 9:25am

I'm sorry, but your "theory" is an embarrassment. If you really valued science - or at least if you understood it - you'd want your "theory" to undergo the scientific method before trying to get it accepted. I don't think you can justify either of those postulates. I'm inclined to agree that nothing is infinite, but proving it is another matter. And there does appear to be a beginning to the universe, and there will likely be an end.

Permalink Reply by Juliet Defarge on June 15, 2009 at 9:47am

I visited your blog and I have problems with some of your postulates. While I appreciate the courage to tackle such important topics, I believe you need to define some of your terms better (such as "world,") and have a discussion with a physicist about time and dimensions.

Permalink Reply by vandrerol on June 15, 2009 at 11:00am

When I was little, Carl Sagan taught me not to discard an idea just because it seems silly or in gross contradiction to the facts. It's more scientific to check and find it's wrong than simply to ignore it. So here goes, let's be scientific.

The first postulate is wrong, as zero can exist as a denominator and does so an awful lot of times. What a/0 equals is what's debated. In regular arithmetic it's simply stated as 'undefined' but in can be expressed in different ways in other areas of mathematics. Calculus, for instance, says that in a/b, as b approaches 0, then a/b approaches infinity. We don't say it is infinity, only that it approaches it.

Your second and third postulates (nothing can be created and nothing can be destroyed) are, I think, actually correct. While I would like you to be conscious in the manner in which they are correct. Matter is destroyed and created all the time, as is energy. In a closed system, however, the total amount of matter/energy remains constant. So in that manner, and up until now, we have been able to witness only transformation of particles into energy and the other way around.

But then you jump to your fourth postulate, which is a non sequitur. You tried to connect your previous ones using some frankly metaphysical wording into 'Existence of Nothing can be Infinite'. Although I cannot personally assess the validity of that statement, it does not follow from your previous statements, nor is it properly explained to stand on it's own.

From this point on, you don't really bother to explain yourself, only making conclusions out of nothing. Some of which are quite on-scientific in nature and some which are easily disproved. And then there's that bit about tan 90 which was actually a bit entertaining.

So no, I don't think your theory stands, or is even capable of being called a theory. Don't take me wrong, I encourage you to keep thinking about this. I make funky theories all the time, but please, let's stick to science and scientific wording. Your whole theory smells more like Jainist philosophy, and while I find that to be quite alright, it does not belong in the science section of the library.

Also, "Please help. Let us spread atheism, the only truth." sounds a bit creepy, but maybe that's just me.

Permalink Reply by Mike on June 15, 2009 at 11:11am

Not just you. I'm not sure, but it kinda looks like a parody/troll post.

Permalink Reply by vandrerol on June 15, 2009 at 5:45pm

It seems Sagar's original post has attracted the attention of this guy (Debunking Atheists). See the comments section.

Permalink Reply by Gwen on June 15, 2009 at 9:04pm

LOL, looks like a troll, thinks like a troll, I'm not wasting MY time!!