speed of dark II….continues

RE: speed of dark II….continues

Either there was no big bang, or it was an empty void, depending upon which theory you believe.

The big bang theory suggests the creation of a singularity that is the exact opposite to a black hole singularity… ie instead of matter being sucked in and crushed out of existance, it spews out in the form of electrons, protons, and neutrons at enormous temperatures… as they cooled they formed the most basic form they could… ie hydrogen… one electron, one proton, and one neutron.
Gravity did the rest in that balls formed and as the pressure built up gravity increased and eventually stars formed which created heavier elements… I think it is nice to think the stuff we are all made of was created in the core of a star… much better than some super being called god created two humans and we are all descended from those two.

Perhaps all the matter that is crushed out of existance in black holes is somehow sent back to the initial singularity and that is our future… for all matter to eventually be sucked into a black hole to reappear at the beginning of time.

Ahh who cares anyway… it doesn’t actually make that much difference to us.
We know our sun has a few billion years left in it, and more immediately we are losing our moon whihc will probably make earth unlivible before then… of all our problems wondering why we are here and where everything came from is no that important.

RE: speed of dark II….continues

So,what was there before the big bang?????????

Dave

RE: speed of dark II….continues

I don’t think the human mind has the capacity to understand the complexities of the universe.

The universe theory goes like this.

1) Nothing then Big Bang

2) It’s always exhisted

Both of the above are mind blowing when you think about them.

RE: speed of dark II….continues

munnst- I didnt say there werent parallel universes, I said if there were parallel universes, they would no longer each be universes but facets of a larger overall universe. Ive also never tried to imply either that scientists have all the answeres, only that they methodically prove things they claim as true. A philosopher in my opinion is more of an abstract artist that simply paints a picture of something that gives a view to new possibilitys.

RE: speed of dark II….continues

>After reading all of the replys and taking all points of
>view and theories into account I can honestly say and
>without fear of contradiction that its given me a headache.
>Which raises a further question if you cannot see my
>headache, does that mean it does not exist…if so why am I
>taking aspirins?!

Aha !…this brings up another topic…whats the speed of thought ?. Your headache must travel at the speed of thought, so if you could slow down your thought process, then the headache would go away so you could then speed up the thought process ?

Cheers

Gary

RE: speed of dark II….continues

“Yeah, but all this science stuff is based on scientists and quite frankly they are often proved wrong.”

I prefer to believe scientists rather than philosophers for that very reason.

The fact that they can be wrong is good. They test their theories with practical experiments and tests. In testing they sometimes have to adjust what they thought if testing proves this to be necessary.

A philosopher has no such problem because it is all theoretical anyway.

Science gives us drugs, and technology, and many other benefits.

Philosophers give us headaches.

Of course not all are bad.

Formal logic made its way into computers, and everyone should do a critical thinking paper in philosophy. (The one I took really got stuck into fortune tellers of all kinds).

Philosophers, like religious leaders all claim infalibility simply because they things they know are not worth knowing.

Ask someone who studies epistemology (ie the theory and science of Knowledge) and they will say we can know nothing except “I think therefore I am”. Try driving a car or brushing your teeth with only that knowledge…. what if your car ceased to be why you were cornering? What if your teeth were not where you expected them to be?

RE: speed of dark II….continues

After reading all of the replys and taking all points of view and theories into account I can honestly say and without fear of contradiction that its given me a headache.
Which raises a further question if you cannot see my headache, does that mean it does not exist…if so why am I taking aspirins?!

RE: speed of dark II….continues

scientists can explain both of those things, but not to a degree you, as a philosopher, would be happy to accept..

I often wonder how one can study science and philosophy……and come out with a good understanding of the other. One clouds the other through no fault of their own.

Science is just a more accurate, and frankly, factually based subject, from which answers can be derived(equipped with the proper tools).

coanda

RE: speed of dark II….continues

good question

RE: speed of dark II….continues

Yeah, but all this science stuff is based on scientists and quite frankly they are often proved wrong.

The earth is flat, man cannot fly, speed of sound – pah, you can’t travel faster than light, etc.

How do you know there are no other parallel universes?

Consider the following.

Two ponds lying side by side.
The fish in pond A don’t know about pond B.
The fish in pond B don’t know about A.
But both A and B exist.
A isn’t having an impact on B and vice versa.
Of course fish elders have argued the existance of a parallel pond and some fish have claimed to have had visions from the `face`. Fish theologians for decades have theorised but are mainly thought of as `cranks`. Some fish even go as far as to suggest that fishgod dug the ponds in 7 days, that fish ancestors arrived from the air in small polythene craft, occasionally fed us for our sacrifices.

I will leave you with one question.
If scientists have all the answers why can’t they explain why things are alive and what causes gravity?

Ok, thats two!

RE: speed of dark II….continues

“Everything exists in our mind and nowhere else.
If there was no living thing to perceive that things existed how would you know?
Do you believe in parallel universes?”

munnst-If you dont believe in any consistant reallity, the idea of parrallel univeses is irrellivant. One of the ways I think Steven Hawking embarrases himself is his theorys of time travel, matter cannot occupy space of other matter, so his ideas of munipulting the past to alter the present reality is impossible, hence the nessecity of parallel universes (which cant exist, otherwise they wouldnt be universes). As GarryB mentioned in the first thread, every force reverbatates across the entire univese. Stars are displaced by tiny but mathematically calculable amount by the very movement of your hand. What Im getting at, is you wont walk out your door and find the empire state building planted there without effecting the physics of the entire universe. Like wise not one atom on your toenail can be displaced without affecting all atoms surrounding (basically the entire universe)

RE: speed of dark II….continues

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 11-12-02 AT 12:27 PM (GMT)]” that wasnt aimed at YOU gary!”

Yes… I know…:-) I am suggesting that what Muunst needs is not Therapy, but to take philosophy a little less seriously.

“Everything exists in our mind and nowhere else.”

So every time I close my eyes everything around me (if I am alone) ceases to be, and when I open my eyes everything that I percieved as being there is recreated anew by my mind… a little ego centric don’t you think Muunst?

“If there was no living thing to perceive that things existed how would you know?”

How would I “Know” anything?
The things I claim to “know” my mind aquires via my senses.
My senses are falable. (ie when I am drunk or very tired my senses can play tricks on me… how do I know when I am seeing the real truth… when I am sober or when I am drunk?… I can’t know, therefore I can’t know anything that I perceive.)

“Do you believe in parallel universes?”

Why do you bring up this subject?

RE: speed of dark II….continues

that wasnt aimed at YOU gary!

coanda

RE: speed of dark II….continues

Everything exists in our mind and nowhere else.
If there was no living thing to perceive that things existed how would you know?
Do you believe in parallel universes?

RE: speed of dark II….continues

You are confusing time with the concept of time.

Stars existed before they were perceived by humans and called stars.

The old “if a tree falls in the middle of a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a noise” idea is rubbish.
It suggests that things happen merely for our perception.
In other words until the moon was “discovered” it did ot exist.
Of course the obvious question then would be how could it have been discovered if it didn’t exist.
Therefore it must have been a creation… man the creator replaces god?????

A speck of dust has a fairly uniform structure and a boundry… to things this universe does not seem to have.

Coanda
Not therapy… just a bit of commonsense when reading the rantings of some of the greatest lunatics the world has ever seen. (The ones that stay out of assylums by claiming to be great philosophers.)

RE: speed of dark II….continues

consider….therapy??

coanda

RE: speed of dark II….continues

Time does not exist and is only our minds perception.
Consider sleep, death, the common blue bottle and schrodingers cat.

Whilst awake we are concious of the passing of time.
Time can be slow, the Ikea queue syndrome, or fast, lunchbreak.
Asleep we have no perception of the passing of time, we have no perception of reality, of life or death.
Consider before you were born.
Before you were born millenia flashed by in an instant. Stars died, galaxies made. There was no time for time did not exist, we did not exist. When we die the universe will end, time will have ceased. Like Schroedingers cat we will exist and yet not exist.
If a man falls over in a forest and there isn’t a women around to critisize him, is he still wrong?
What if the entire universe were just a mere speck of dust floating around a light bulb?

RE: speed of dark II….continues

time is NOT an abstract thinking…labeling of time IS. What i’m trying to say is the unit of “seconds” is an abstract thinking labelled by humans, but the reality of time as a ratio of certain atomic vibration is NOT abstract at all.

RE: speed of dark II….continues

munnst: Are you a Philosophy student?

RE: speed of dark II….continues

Phew! 🙂