Doom3world

The issue with existence is that we look at a fraction of the whole, interpreting the fraction we know as completeness and extrapolating enormously precise data from it. As with any multiplicative model only the smallest change in a variable will cause a completely different outcome which, in return, often gets answered by a different reinterpretation of the original model to preserve academic credibility.

Ever since I got introduced to the concept of galaxies, universe, time... I fell short of wrapping my mind around the idea of "the void" since I would expect the void to exist in something too. Or in other words - I'm not smart enough to cope with the idea of something warping back into itself to create the space where itself is placed in.

I believe if a certain amount of force, matter, friction.. is missing from a math equation it does not mean the equation is necessarily wrong, but more often it might be correct but for wrong reasons. When humanity looks back in 2000 years to todays formulas it is possible they will look the same as when we look back to a flat earth equation in which the sun circles around earth. In ancient times sun rise and sund down could get measured pretty accurately, however earth did not spin around the sun but vice versa.

We're all looking up the stars to make a sense out of it, some come to the conclusion it's because humanity is the chosen life form singlehandedly created by a higher order, others come to the conclusion of math equations trying to break down the ultimately complex system we're part of into smaller, understandable chunks and others don't give a damn and are happy to look at the nightly stars and dream away.

It think the less intelligent people are, the more do they seek the simple answer which allows them to stop questioning the complexity of existence, to daily reconsider what the meaning of life could be respectively to question whether life has any other meaning than to "just be" in an array of moments which add up to a timespan called life, lifes adding up to generations, generations adding up to millenniums...

Sorry for disturbing the thread with non-math related ideas.

Existence Made Simplest: Metro, Working, Sleeping.

Before you take any offense please re-read my post. I question that the facts we look at provide enough observable evidence. It was a hard not allowed to question fact that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. Your quote above was as right back then as it is now.

Well this isn't nice to come back to. I fell like someone's wiped their arse with my thread. This thread is meant for coherent musings on the nature of existence for those who want real answers. If you want to debate or refute anything in the post then please do but please don't pollute the thread any further with meaningless religious drivel unless you have something real to back it up. You might as well claim the fucking tooth fairy did it. The universe is beautiful. Why would you want to ruin that by cheapening it with fairy tales. I swear religion is just made up of people with no imagination looking for an easy answer. You claim that there's a lack of evidence for evolutionism then you've got the fucking nerve to call a realistic theory a fairy tale and quote that ridiculous and just plain evil pile of filth called the bible! What makes your religion right and others wrong? Simple, it's the one you were brought up with! The things I refer to in this thread have passed countless tests of their authenticity. As far as I know religion has never passed one. The idea that you think you know better because some stupid 2000 year book says so is so fucking cheeky it's offensive. Why not just assume the universe/multiverse is the supreme being. We know it's intelligent, it has us. It's everywhere at once and it's all powerful. There's a very good reason why religious nuts are considered stupid and/or crazy. You want as much respect as evolutionists? Well that's simply not going to happen because you're not rational. I spose you don't believe in dinosaurs either? I'll respond more directly to your "thoughts" tomorrow when I'm less angry. If I carry on then I might say how I really feel about people who think like that. The only real point you brought up to refute the big band was anti-matter and that could simply be because of the uncertainty principle. Some planets have weird motion (Uranus especially) because of collisions.

Yes it does because those variations help to decide which survive and reproduce and pass on those variations to the next generation who will have more of the advantageous mutations and there own mutations that will survive or not depending on whether they advantageous or not etc. It's honestly very simple. Wakey wakey.

UTTER BULLSHIT!

Yea keep the cycle of ignorance going. That's just what the world needs.

Black holes are very real. Singularities are the natural order of things. It's when the gravity's opposed that you get planets and stars and stuff. They're not these objects in space that exist in the sense that we're used to. They're just gravity. Black holes are gravity in its natural state. Once it overpowers the neutrons electromagnetic field there's nothing to stopping it. With nothing to oppose the acceleration curve, it has to keep getting stronger at a faster and faster rate, producing a singularity.

General relativity predicted the big bang before evidence for it was found. As an interesting side note; Einstein didn't like the big bang model. He was a steady state believer and came up with his cosmological constant to try to offer an alternative explanation. It does exist and it's now called dark energy, but it doesn't change the fact that gravity demands that at some point all the matter and energy in the universe was in the same place at the same time. Singularities can have any mass. They just don't care. Einstein also didn't believe in black holes. He was wrong. There have proven to be objects in the universe that can only be black holes. The Milky Way has about 100 million and all the big one including the Milky Way have a super massive black hole at the centre that everything obits around. The ultimate irony is that Einstein wasn't a relativist. Luckily there were others that saw something in it to convince them that is the most profound theory that there ever could be and it's at the heart of the whole truth, not complimentary to something else, myself included. I think any other theory including quantum mechanics should fit within the frame work of relativity. As far as I know string theory does.

In the beginning there was hydrogen. Some of it fused into helium. If there was enough of it, it fused that into carbon, and so on until it got to iron. To fuse iron into anything heavier would require energy rather than release it. When a star gets to that point it will trigger a super nova. That provides enough energy to create all the heavier elements that then form an expanding nebula and either pull itself back in if a shock wave hits it or get scattered throughout the universe and sometimes kick start other nebulas to get them spinning and start a chain reaction that leads to a new star system. The heavier elements get pulled into the middle to create the densest planets getting thinner and gassier as you go out. If a planet forms that's the right distance from it's star/stars then it has the potential to support life. When life first formed or found its way onto this planet there was no way it could support animal life. It needed photosynthesis to clean up the poisonous atmosphere and deposit the waist in the form of oil that we're now cleverly putting back into the atmosphere. When animals evolved those with the advantages muscled out the competition until they were destroyed by some big catastrophe which then started another race to fill the gap. After the dinosaurs were gone mammals could thrive and intelligence was their biggest weapon. This meant that the most intelligent survived and had on average more intelligent offspring and the stupid either died or followed religion.

You need to snap out of the conditioning that experience gives you. Circles don't always add up to 360 degrees, parallel lines can cross and the universe doesn't exist within time and space, time and space are a consequence of the universe.


I'm going to explain that circle thing again for those who are interested, but this time a bit differently. Get two pen of equal length and put them right next to each other facing up. Keep them touching at the base at move one of them round a bit like this I/. Now you'll see that as you move the pen further into the horizontal direction, it loses length in the vertical direction, slowly to start with and more rapidly the further you go. Time is a dimension so start again but this time the vertical direction represents time. You're always static from your own point of view so you're moving through time at c. As you tilt the pen the loss of vertical height is time dilation and it gets length extended the the horizontal dimension as the dimension contracts from this arrows point of view. Now move both arrows by the same amount so that the one that was tilted is now pointing straight up and the other is now tilted the other way. From this frame time is moving normally and the other arrow is length extended. To represent acceleration you'd have to bend the pen. The more you bend it the more chance there is of it snapping due to too many Gs. Now we can represent gravity in the same way. Directly horizontal represents an event horizon and directly down represents a singularity.


Here's a really simple way to look at it.

The universe expands at c and takes the massless energy with it. We call this expansion time. Time is simply a change in the relative positions of matter and energy and it all comes from the expansion. If you want to visualise it as a spacial dimension then the past is inwards and the future is outwards. If something is moving relative to you then it's not getting the full expansion because it's riding the wave from your perspective so it's time dilated and length extended.

Matter needs fuel to exist. It takes some of the space around it for the electrons to orbit through and the expansion is slowed. They're like little pack men eating the space as they go. This causes a slow down in the local area around it getting weaker as you move out. And a relatively slower expansion = contraction which we feel as gravity. If there's too much matter in the same place then it overpowers the expansion and the universe in that area contracts and time moves backwards inside the event horizon.

The universe is plotting along just fine without a God, why make a mess trying to create one?

This renders any interesting discussion worthless, doesn't it?

Hmm you've given me a lot to think about. This is what I mean by irrational. You start with a pre-programmed “truth” and then you quote anything you can completely out of context to desperately try to support it, then go la la la I'm not listening when it's refuted. Grow up! You have no interest in the truth and you have no grasp of the subjects your trying to address, which is fine as long as you don't pretend that you do know what the fuck your talking about.





No NO NO! It didn't get dense, it started that way. The universe didn't expand into space, the universe including the space expanded.

I think officially it was the matter anti-matter detonations that propelled the universe outward. There was so much of it that the uncertainty principle crated an imbalance and what's left is the tiniest percentage of what was originally created. The rest was converted into energy. Very big bang.

No one said nothingness produced heat. The vacuum didn't exist before the big bang and it wouldn't have gotten hotter by itself if it had had existed, which it couldn't of.

Yep. So unlikely that it's as good as impossible as I mentioned in the original post. It's extremely finely tuned, because it has to be. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this excuse for a debate.

Gravity.

No it doesn't. Space expanded.

Gravity!

GRAVITY!

GRAVITY!

You know we can create matter and anti-matter unless you copied and pasted that without reading it. They do it by reproducing the conditions of the big bang.

There is no right way to spin and how do you expect everything to be unaffected by everything else? Besides, spin is relative.

Planets are easy. They get lighter as they go out because of gravity. Maybe all the heavier elements of the sun simply got pulled inwards and broken down. That's what should happen I'd have thought.

Or it would have kept expanding faster and faster at an extreme rate right from the off depending on its mass/energy. What right has any religious person got to talk about the difference between real and imaginary?

The sum of all matter and energy within a closed system will always remain the same. And it absolutely doesn't refute any aspects of evolution. Your grasp of scientific principles is laughable. You think life creates new matter? It uses the matter around it. It gets recycled. We all have a few atoms inside us that used to belong to everyone who lived more than a few decades ago. Life isn't this separate thing that exists on the planet. We're part of it. I heard a great quote from an American physicist but I can't remember his name. “We're connected to each other biologically. We're connected to the Earth chemically. And we're connected to the whole universe atomically.”

Stop butchering the laws of nature! The second law of thermodynamics is basically the law of averages, which supports evolution. I'm going to explain this one more time and I know this is like asking a fish not to swim but please try to forget what you think you know for second and try to keep an open mind. Random mutation will cause variation. That's undeniable. Those variations will affect their average life span and therefore the average frequency of reproduction. That's undeniable. Genetic mutations get passed down through generations. That's undeniable. So if the mutilations are advantageous then they stand more chance of enduring and becoming the norm rather than mutations, so any advantages will tend to get exaggerated over time. Please tell us poor humble atheists where we've gone wrong oh enlightened religious one.

Your definition of true scientist seems to be one whose work supports your backwards viewpoint. Non theoretical scientists aren't real scientists. They just document stuff. A well trained monkey could do that. Do you know what a theory is? Theorists try to reorganise patterns in what other people see as chaos and then make predictions based on those patterns. Without theory we would have gotten nowhere. A theory can't really be proved right, only proved wrong. Religion can never be proved wrong, only proved right, which is obviously never going to happen. It's ignorance gone crazy. Totally backwards logic.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, including religion.

That's some fine logic there.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. I covered this before.

This shows a profound lack of understanding of the whole concept of evolution. Why would cutting off their tails affect the genetic code of mice? You would have to select the mice with the shortest tails and breed those ones. There will be variations of the next generations length of tails but the average will be shorter then the original group. It will be the same average as the ones you selected to breed. Then you do the same again and so on. How do you think we got all the breeds of dog from the wolf? It's a lot easier with dogs for some reason but the principle's the same with any life. I can't believe you still haven't grasped this concept. Evolution is just selective breeding based on advantages. You obviously either have trouble reading or your just too brainwashed to comprehend. Shit, I explained it again.

The giraffes with the longest necks could survive and reproduce more easiNo, not again! Just because you don't understand something, that doesn't make it wrong. Never observed change from one species to another? Are you fucking kidding?

I don't need to bring anything. Your a creationist. You don't have a leg to stand on. You've already admitted you believe in God because of your upbringing. You don't use logic or reason. How do you expect credibility? Religion deals in the base levels of conciousness. How can you hope to achieve anything truly spiritual when your being dragged down by that shit. Do as we tell you or you'll go to hell. Yea whatever. If there is an equivalent of hell it will reserved for people who refuse to think for themselves. It's probably about time you started to form your own thoughts and ideas. You should listen to your brother. He obviously has a much stronger grasp of the world around him than you do. You've already proven you don't know the difference between fact and fiction. Your loss! I don't think ignorance is bliss. I'd rather know the truth. I know religious people are afraid, so you need to believe in imaginary friends for comfort but you'll never appreciate the value of the truth. The truth isn't important to you because your happy with the lie, but please don't try to infect the planet any further by passing on that bullshit to others. I realise that you will probably never accept any truth that contradicts you ridiculous views because you don't want to. But I'm not writing this for your benefit. Next time you pray to Jesus tell him he has a lot to answer for.

The way you post it does not read as if you are interested in a discussion. If I start a discussion with the preface of "I will not back down or give in" it means your mind is pre-set and not open to consider different ideas and broaden your horizon. We had this through all times - flat world, the earth is the center of the universe... if you did question it you did end up before a inquisition tribunal with a witch verdict.

Along these lines it indeed makes sense to call people uneducated, stupid and plain crazy if they continue to act in a final, pre-set mind.

An open mind, which I hope you have, does not mean you have to swing your opinion at the first sign of incoherence to your ideology or belief system. You can continue to walk down your path in happiness as long as you allow to let others walk their path.
Those who have read my posts diligently will have noticed I don't push for a binary solution (this or that, anything inbetween must be wrong) but for both sides to consider that their decision bases ("facts") are likely
to be incomplete and worth further research for another two thousand years.

This is how I approach this and related topics. If complexity exceeds current standards I tend to accept the fact that current scientific research can only come up with intermediate results, not final results.
Those who give in and back down to explanations called final and exclude any other explanation are likely to be stupid and if they do something silly like starting a war or sending people to jail on this basis are likely plain crazy.

I conclude that both, wal and you, have opposing nonetheless interesting viewpoints which, at this point of time, may be totally anti-correlated, but could eventually lead to the same answer a long time down the road, just like parallel lines can meet in eternity albeit no one can see it by observing only a small fraction of the available probe.

That's a bit vague. I think officially it was the matter anti-matter detonations that propelled the universe outward. There was so much of it that the uncertainty principle crated an imbalance and what's left is the tiniest percentage of what was originally created. The rest was converted into energy. Very big bang.

The Earth has always been widely regarded as spherical. The main reason being the fact that when you look at a ship in the distance, you see the top first than gradually the rest comes into view. In a way everything is at the centre of the universe. Sorry to be so picky.

Of course. That's how real knowledge works. It's known to be incomplete and it's constantly receiving further research, and if that means a re-think of what is accepted at the moment then that's great, that's what most people want because it would further our understanding. But that's not what religious people want. They want our knowledge to go backwards, and they discourage independent thought. Religion really is evil in my opinion.

Having said that, I think the way things work are so much simpler than most people realise and it's us that are complicated. That was my main motivation for starting this thread. There's really not much to the universe. Matter/energy and space-time. That's it as far as anyone knows. Nothing else is need to produce anything that's been observed so far.

Nor would it ever claim to, unless it produces a provable theory of everything. String theory shows promise but there virtually zero evidence for it. How can something with zero evidence be taken seriously? Because it's based on two things with strong evidence that contradict each other and it's the simplest way to accommodate both. So you could argue that it has twice as much evidence than the theories that it's based on. In reality it's just a nice idea that works really well and it's by far the best candidate for a future unifying physics that's been proposed.

If I thought both viewpoints were equally valid than I wouldn't get annoyed when people post toxic waste passed down from the dark ages. You don't need eternity to see parallel lines cross. Everything in the universe is moving in a dead straight line in four dimensions. It's just that the definition of straight doesn't work on large scales. And it doesn't even have to be close to straight when you look at it in three dimensions. When the planets orbit the sun they're not really moving in circles. They're moving in straight four dimensional lines. They're relative motion tends to balance out the curvature of space-time producing what we see as circles. Neptune and Pluto sometimes cross orbits with Pluto nearer the sun for a time. That is by definition the crossing of parallel lines. It happens as potential everywhere. But of course straight lines are relative anyway. If your moving at a different velocity to something else then what one sees as straight wont be to the other, and you'll never produce a dead straight line anyway because nothing is infinite. It will have to come back on itself eventually.

Hey Wal I know where you are coming from when you say "religion is evil", throughout history religion is at the heart of many of the biggest atrocities the human race has known. People claiming to know the will of God have insisted that: "God wants us to liberate the holy lands", "God want us to punish the wicked or non-believers", "God wants us to fight evil", and we've seen the bloodshed and suffering that has resulted time and time again from those trains of thought. One thing I think that you are'nt taking into account is that this sort of behavior is actually contrary to what a lot of religions teach, for example: the New Testement tells us to "love thy neighbor" and "blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth", it also says in the Bible: "vengence is mine, I will repay, saith the lord" which I've always interpreted as saying that judging and punishing is only God's right and not that of mans.

I think that you may be paying more attention to the personalities before the actual principles involved, at the heart of most religions lies a set of moral values and principles that if adhered to correctly should in (theory at least) provide a happy and peaceful life for most of us. The problem is that throughout history and even today evil people misinterpret and use religion to further their evil agendas, the flipside of this is that the same people who misuse religion also regularly misuse science as a means of control and opression by perpetuating the need for atomic bombs, chemicle and biological weapons, etc. With every new scientific advancement we do lose almost as much as we gain from it, I feel that we need morals and ethics more than ever in these days.

It's pointless to argue whether a higher power exists or not, it can't be proved or disproved. There are many other dimensions besides what we exist in, there's a lot more to the universe than what can be seen, measured, or what mathematics can point to, for all we know it's only the tip of the iceberg compared to what we don't know. I wanted to share this article that I came across a while back...

http://searchwarp.com/swa40395.htm

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to believe in anything supernatural, I really don't care what other people believe in, I have my own "truths" which no one else can share anyway because we don't and never will have the same perspective in life. I do always try to keep an open mind, I don't shut out possibilities, if I see a new philosophy that I think may be beneficial to me and my life I incorporate it into mine. What I have seen is that science is misused for evil just as much as religion is, I don't discount either one on account of the actions and misuses of corrupt or evil people. I always try to take principles before personalities.

How can anything be supernatural? If it exists then it's natural. There's a lot of nasty stuff in the bible as well. Why do you need to buy into religion to live your live by a certain moral code? You can do that anyway. It's not science that's evil, it's just knowledge. It doesn't know the meaning of good and evil, and it doesn't have an agenda. It's what what that knowledge is used for that can be evil. Religion is different. It's not knowledge. It closes your mind rather than opening it. It doesn't encourage independent thought and it doesn't offer anything that anyone couldn't already have on their own. This is beautiful and I know you want it so don't do this or that because if you do you'll regret it. FUCK YOU! It stimulates your spiritual side and then takes credit for those feelings that came from you. It's meant to subdue you not empower you.

That article is basically asking the question: What is thought? Could a computer ever be programmed to do it? I don't think it would think no matter how powerful it was. There's something we don't know about the brain. We know what some of the different compartments or for but it's the whole thing together that allows us to think. There is no one area that controls consciousness, so where does it come from? Life has a knack for using whatever's around it. So maybe it found something very useful and evolved to harness it to create thought. Wild speculation here but there is an energy source passing through our bodies all the time. The weak nuclear force from the sun passes directly through anything and straight through our bodies including our brain. What if the brain is just an aerial that filters and organises this force into thoughts. I find it hard to believe that a small piece of organic mush in my head is capable of generation consciousness, but it's not so hard to believe that it can use something that's already there. What we need to do is put a monkey in a rocket and shoot it right out of the solar system and see if it's brain starts to slow down as it moves away from the sun.

Truth be told - the church is not exactely the most accurate place to look for when it comes to seperate right from wrong.