₦airaland Forum

Hmmn. Your take is interesting. I do not know what exactly happens when glycerin reacts with a mix of Nitric and Sulphuric acid but I wouldn't use the term annihilation. It ought to just be an exothermic reaction and not annihilation. As regards to the detectability of antimatter and your reluctance to call it so, I'm afraid is not so convincing. Anti-matter is after all just a name and opposites are of different types. It's moot. I do not believe there's anything thing or any phenomena we can create that does not exist somewhere, somehow already in the universe. We are advancing and learning to artificially replicate many things already around.

For your current misgivings about anti-matter, maybe you should consider dark matter. The universe is estimated to be 90% dark matter and it is one hell of an undetectable (so far as I know) thing but it is there or everything points to its existence. At worst, it is a constant ncessary for astronomical (I mean space stuff) calculations to be correct and conform to Newtonian physics and the theories of relativity. Maybe this would be a worthy direction for your comparisons with spirit form even though I don't buy that either.

You know you want to, cara. Blood and gore, blood and gore

Hmmn. Why do people call ALL emoticons smileys? Especially when only about 2% smile?

Now this woman gives me three. Sensory overload

Will you guys keep quiet? Some (most) of us have not seen the film

Aieromon. How can your sister compare Sponge Bob with Ben-10. Oh, your sister. No problemo

Ah, calm down Justcool. I was trying to be funny. People have been talking on this thread as if Einstein never proposed that theory. I've heard preposterous things like matter can never be destroyed. I was just reminding everyone about the equation not that I think it has ceased to hold true. We are together, me, you and our professor

@Analissa. I was actually hoping to jump start a discussion on anti-matter. If we hold the big bang as correct, I'd imagine that for every bit of matter spurting forth from the big bang, there's an equivalent amount of anti-matter. I don't believe we can create it if it doesn't exist in nature. People like to point to black holes but those are point of extreme gravitational pull that is even strong enough to deflect or suck up light all together. But what is responsible for this amount of gravity? Is there such a thing we can call anti-energy?

I don't think there will be an explosion if anti-matter comes in contact with matter except if it is highly compressed.

Chai. This na one man show o. Hi Image

Arggh. I lost patience jare. I'll just give my two cents on the much i've read.

E=MC² is my favourite equation. Has it been disproved or people are ignoring it here. But as far as know M not equal to E/C². In order words energy cannot be made to form matter or we do not have the technology yet or I am unaware about it. Consequently, energy cannot be destroyed and matter cannot be created. In the same vein, energy can be created and matter destroyed. Anyways, this is immaterial to the discussion. Analissa talks like a scientist (are you?) and I'd like to know her views (and everyone else's) on antimatter.

@Deep Sight. Now to the original post. On a cheeky note, not everyone will debate whether a rodent has any class of a soul or spirit but this is besides the point for a dead man might not be a palatable picture. Anyway, I assume the point you are trying to make is that there is an essence which has left the rodent and its leaving is responsible for its death. Tudor has made some points that I share only she didn't make it articulate enough. You're treating the rat as though it just dropped dead like that, snap! Something killed it. Either it had a heart attack, or it got poisoned or something. You can liken the rat to an electric generator. If the generator was a perfect machine with 100% efficiency with unlimited supply of fuel, it will run forever. Once something goes wrong, it will go off. It never had a soul before or after. But a rat has a circulatory, respiratory, digestive, nervous etc systems that makes it able to repair itself and find fuel for it's survival. That's the only difference. An animal or plant or whatever we call living things are nothing but extremely efficient machines.

I believe in the soul and spirit and whatever but I don't think it is energy, the kind that is scientific. It is of a different kind. This should be easy to accept except you believe God came into existence with the big bang which I think not. Therefore spiritual entities are not made of the traditional kind of energy.

Chai. You guys have digressed so much that I'm at a loss whether to address the initial issue or join the current course of discussion. Who says I can't do both? I'll read the thread again

Defining God may be said to mean our take on God (which is really all there is) or actually attempting to define God like we knew Him (like we know what a kitten is). The latter is utterly impossible.

I don't like using big words for they mean too many things when one means only one thing. An amalgamation of big words will only increase the margin for error and the likelihood of being misunderstood. Therefore, I'd like to define God based on the attributes I deem it impossible for Him to not have.

God has power over all things.

God is just, which means, He doesn't break His promises (which also means He absolutely doesn't have to)

God doesn't need us. Which means He can do without us. He may well like us (or love us more than anything we can imagine like some people like to believe)

God exists outside of time.

God's resources are endless and inexhaustible

God is definitely one indivisible unit and not multiple and surely not to the extent of having individual wills even if they are always in tandem

God does not need sustenance

God has no conceivable beginning and will have no conceivable end

God does not think like us and He has no morals. It means He doesn't have to. Reminds me of Sisikill's signature: don't tell me to be careful. I have a gun. He answers to no one but Himself as far as governing us is concerned.

These are the things I think I know of God. Here are a list of things I don't believe about Him or I think is not necessary for Him to be like.

God doesn't have to be good and definitely not overwhelmingly so. I don't think He is evil either. I think He is neither and if you insist that He is nothing but pure unadulterated love, I'll ask what He loved when there existed nothing. Love is a subjective term which means it ceases to exist when there's nothing to love. An attribute of God that is subject to something else is not a true attribute. In any case, God does love but I don't think He loves everybody. There's no one that will choose not to be with Him. It's impossible. Don't blame it on freewill. Free will means we can choose and we ALWAYS choose that which we believe is best for us. Rebelling against God can only happen if we truly believe we can get away with it or that it is the best for us to not be in God's presence. No one will choose to walk into a burning house and reject a holiday trip to Tahiti because he wants to express his free will.

God doesn't have to be spirit the same way we are spirits

God doesn't have to know the future. Because that would make Him unable to change His mind since He knows what He'll do already. So God may know infinite numbers of futures but there can not be ONE future and if there is, God cannot know of it because that will make Him also a piece in a chess game. karen Owens has a neat little sentence about this that goes:

Can omniscient God, who knows the future, find the omnipotence to change His future mind?

We are not the centre of God's attention

That's a summary of my definition of God. I find it hard to believe God exists but I find it several times harder to believe He doesn't exist

Kai! So no be only naija dey suffer. If Karate Kid and The A-Team that has almost eroded in my memory is just premiering in the UK, there can be no injustice to us here.

Oh! All the Es and Ds confused me. Lol.

Ed is fantabulously retarded but he might grow up to be smarter than Homer or Wiggum or even Peter

I don't need God should need an agent with plenty faith to heal anyone and especially a little freaking kid. Who/What do you think God should care about the most? The kid? Or His policy of not helping when there is a deficit of faith? And why are modern Christians so caught up with faith healing and miracles and financial break through? Isn't heaven enough? Help humanity and stop with the ME ME ME ME thing. I see people waving their hands in church (on TV) with their eyes closed as if they are looking for MTN signal and I go: You don't even need a pastor you deceive you. You're doing a pretty darn good job yourself.

@Obinna, The Kajola thing scare me small. All I'll say is that it's a step in the right direction. That is all. As for Ije. I'm filling my buffer to look at that trailer

@iice. Costume[b]s[/b]. The only costumes I like are that of Rorschach and Dr. Manhattan (if you can call that a costume). He and Rorschach were my favorite characters though Ozymandias is kinda engaging. You're right. Night Owl is the most ridiculous. A batman wannabe

Lol, is your brain visible?

Ed, Edd n Eddy is not one person na. In any case they are kids. They can be excused. If you're talking about absolute retardinhos, I think Chief Wiggum makes Homer look like a Nobel prize winner

This would have been funny if I didn't know the power of religious fanaticism. That Church is being irresponsible because if the press gets wind of this and broadcast it (the press is THAT stupid) other religious fanatics might not stop at simply burning bibles too. I hope this doesn't happen

Where did you find that hideous puke inducing thing on your profile?

Seems the time has finally come eh?

Well, since you've put them up, I assume you've seen them and it is safe for me to follow suit. Arigato, Obinna san

Hmmn. A screening. That has got to be a good thing. We'll see. Even the much acclaimed Jenifa which EVERYONE seemed to have a good word for has not intrigued me enough. We'll see with these ones. Any link to see perhaps a trailer? Abi we never reach that level of sophistication yet?

Lol, Obinna. You like to summarise don't you?

I've heard strange things about Kajola. By strange I mean, Nollywood attempting a sci-fi (abi na animation, I forget) film. That fills me with trepidation. Sci-fi?!!!! I've never heard about Ije.What's special about it. Both films sound Yoruba-ish. Why is this?

@Obinna. I'll be on my game soon, no worry. Got my shortlist down pat. I've never seen a movie in 3D and even though I think it's rightfully a significant benchmark in cinema and arguably in the right direction I don't think any movie should be made into 3D if visuals are not terribly intrinsic to the story. Numerous films had come out in 3D since even the ridiculous Spy Kids but it seems Avatar was the first because no one can escape the stunning visuals. If remakes were possible, I'd choose The Matrix, I, Robot and 300 etc. Speaking of 300, Snyder's Watchmen was awesome to me though it may be for different reasons from iice. I found it philosophically rich and engaging. I daresay the superheroes and supervillains can be said to be representative of something else. Sadly, I'm not very familiar with the graphic novels so I can't comment on how good or faithful a rendition of the novels the film is. My only trouble was with the ugly costumes which I'll let go as staying true to the novels.

@iice. As expected. Give people a break, lol. Not everyone is familiar with mind bending material like Memento or Fight Club or even The Matrix (which queerly can be enjoyed without being understood). Simple plots like The Manchurian Candidate or The Illusionist or even Vanilla Sky (or Open Your Eyes) still have people asking the wrong questions.

@Ijaw girl. How was Salt? The plot seems pretty bland to me. Perhaps even overbeat. I hope it won't be like the silly Wanted.

Nice exchanges between Deep Sight and Analissa. I do not subscribe to the thought that time and numbers are eternal in their existence in the sense I think you mean. I think they're eternal ideas (what use is an idea with no one to have it?) and they are subjective in nature. Let me explain. Time, the supposed fourth dimension in my opinion fluctuates from existence to non existence depending on the observer. If nothing moves, time in effect ceases to exist. It may sound like queer logic but that is what time is, a definition of relativity. This begs the question if there was ever a time (I chuckle) when NOTHING moved? Well, I'd imagine the singularity postulated by people who subscribe to the big bang to be an infinitely minute (almost to the point of non-existence) and infinitely dense particle. Before I digress too much, my point is time exists only if other things exists (even though it's hard to prove that there was ever such a time) and not in and of itself. So we may be saying the same thing but out of different reasons. To illustrate in another way, an electron is perhaps the smallest imaginable and verifiable thing (input whatever you think it is as I'm no physicist and I may be wrong) and there's no reason to believe this doesn't hold true throughout the universe. But is it difficult to imagine something perhaps half the size of an electron? It is even conceivable (provided you believe in God) but it doesn't mean such a thing exists. The same argument applies for numbers which to me are just subjective ideas. Two cannot exist without one and three. Perhaps the only truly unique number is zero and infinity (if you can call that a number)

I'll come back to the subject of God later, Idehn, lol.

I didn't attempt to give any definition of God as I'm not utterly familiar with Him. I just think there are some characteristics He MUST have and others He doesn't necessarily HAVE to but we like to thrust upon Him because we like to sleep feeling all warm and fuzzy inside. I'll attempt a definition later though.

Why don't you guys agree to disagree and do something else instead of going about in circles and taking offense etc?

Gbam, Mantraa.

I didn't even bother with the blog

More articulately, was the world brought about by the big bang or by creation? I don't see how they have to be mutually exclusive. What parameters do you use to judge if the big bang is an accident? Everything points to the validity of the big bang but I am yet to see conclusive proof. I am inclined to believe in the theory because I really don't care either way. Who is to say there really aren't multiple universes? With other beings before us and probably other ones coming after us. Other being WITH us. I mean with us co-existing in this time and not UFOs which are silly. In short, conflict arises between science and religion if your stance on religion is too rigid or when you can't separate religion from fables and tales and opinion.