posted by The Curse Word Destroyer, age 11 on .
This is my theory, read well if you wish to know the truth: according to the big bang, there is a equal amount of anti-matter to the matter, BUT nearly all that matter is missing! In this theory there was NO anti-matter when the earth was made. anti-matter is made when something goes into a black hole, then comes out a white hole as anti matter. BUT you cant see a black Hole because, light comes from the sun and reflects off your eyes, then it bounces off something else and then it comes back to your eyes. if light cannot escape a black hole then how can you see it? you cant see nothing, can you? perhaps your brain thinks its a extra blind spot and the sub conscious mind fills up the space where it sees nothing. if black holes done exist then i have another way anti-matter was formed; when something is burned it loses weight in ash, for example: get a big log, then burn it. the size and density of the ashes left is less, less heavy, less matter. where did the matter go? it MUST have turned into anti matter! if you need to correct me or prove me wrong then, go ahead, i want to see if i'm right! am i right?
typical web rant; poorly typed, vacuous and content-free.
huh? i just wanted to get my theory up fast and i normally text. i an not ranting, also i'm a creationist! are you my negative uncle?
that's a negative. :-)
Before pursuing a theory, do a little research.
For example, when the log is burnt, the ashes have less mass, but you also need to include the gases created by the combustion, as well as the fine particles that blow away, and the energy produced by the chemical reactions.
Your ideas are creative, but before you extend the frontiers of human knowledge, it would help to explore what is already known.
Also, no physicist proposes that there was NO anti-matter when the earth was created. There was plenty of it, as there is some around even now. Just not much in our neighborhood of space.
I still don't agree with the big bang...
That's OK. Lots of people don't, including many physicists. It's just an attempt to explain observed phenomena.
Hang in there. You may one day propose a better theory. However, just like all of science, it will only be a theory. The more observable phenomena it explains, the better it is, but there will not ever be a way to prove it.
All of the "laws" of science we now accept are just theories which explain how to predict results. No one really knows what electrons "are" or how gravity works. There are fancy equations that describe the state of things as we see them, but they don't really explain anything.
i realley thought i had something... i better do some research on wiki's and encyclopedias. i disagree with those physicists guys. perhaps ill be one of those guys who argue and argue with the people who THINK they know things. who knows, i may be half-right.
right you are, science is a theory.
Just one more thing. Being a creationist does not mean you have to reject scientific theories. Even if God did create the universe, he had to use physical laws to do it. Maybe God is in control of those laws, and maybe not. If he is, he's done a pretty good job of making things work out.
It's also possible that God has to obey the same laws of physics we do. Maybe not, or maybe he knows a larger collection of laws than we do. In fact, that would almost be a given. For sure he would have a deeper understanding of those laws than we do.
Just because God said "Let there be light!" doesn't mean that it just happened. He used his knowledge of physics to cause it.
Thanks so much! maybe God created the world THEN made gravity and physics for his new creation? ill never know until i go to heaven. you sound exactly like Tristen, my friend. are you him with a internet name Steve?
sorry - that's another negative.