View Full Version : My Theory Of Cosmic Origin....Comments Welcome!
Tristan
08-25-01, 01:31 AM
Lately I have been reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan. While in the car I Brainstormed an idea. It answers questions but raises new ones... here it is.
The Universe has supposedley been created from the big bang. So where did all that matter in the big bang come from? My theory suggests that The universe is actually a black hole in a sense....... So work with me here..... A massive sun dies and creates a massive black hole. This black hole consums entire galaxies and tons of matter of the eons. The black hole is essentially a pouch of Matter from all the stuff it consumed. Of Course we can't see it. We can only see a black hole. But in the inside it's like a pouch. Now lets hypathetically say that all matter is reduced to say, Sub atomic particles when it goes through the Black hole. So there is and intensely compact pouch of protons, Neturons, and electrons Inside this Massive Black hole. Then something happens and The inside Just Starts exploding or changing quickly into a universe. The universe is only as big as the amount of matter in it at the begaining. but things change and when that explosion happens the black hole is somehow closed and we now have a brand new universe. This theory of mine is suggesting that there are many universes and One huge Cosmos. But does it stop there? This is my theory Of cosmic origin.Comments Are very welcome. I know it needs work but tI have 60 years at least., After all I am only 14.
:D :cool:
I have always thought that maybe it was a black hole. Only there's some things here that have to be different. For one there is so much gravity that the source is infinately small. The size of a pea. Now to have that much gravity but that much mass doesn't make sense in that small of an area. But if it were the remains of another universe, completely swallowed, imagine the amount of gravity. Prehaps the point is the white hole letting all of that matter screaming into the universe that we now know. Kind of like the universal rectum with a bad case of the runs. (poor example)
The latest findings indicate that there is a black hole at the center of every galaxy.
What if these black holes are slowly sucking in all the surrounding galactic matter? Each galaxy might eventually disappear into its own black hole and then we will only be left with black holes, ah but then the black holes will be so massive that they will attract each other and start to merge. Perhaps that will be enough gravitic attraction to prevent the observed universe from expanding and cause it to contract ending with one final enormous black hole.
I would then suggest that the black hole might have a maximum threshold above which it cannot sustain itself and will then explode awright another big bang, and the cycle continues.
This is complete conjecture of course I simply liked the idea. Might still be true, but the current thoughts are that the observable universe is likely to expand forever. Shame.
Cris
Banshee
08-30-01, 11:15 AM
A lot of theories you mention.......Why a black hole???
Because most of the people think the Universe exists out of stars and Black Holes....
And people think everything vanishes in these Black Holes, which is true, but to say that the whole Universe once will merge into one big Black Hole....???
We live in the Cosmos, we are born because it makes sense. Everybody on Earth lives here for a reason. Perhaps it is difficult to believe but we live again, and again, and again until we know why we live.
We live to learn to love eachother. Whatever the colour, religion, or whatever else may be........
It doesn't matter in the end, we are all the same, don't be so paranoid and try to trust some one.
Blach Holes are there and they will always be there, but they will never suck up the whole Universe, there are much dimensions. They stay......no matter what.
We belong at such dimension, we come from there..........we are born again from there.
I can't explain it in good words to you now, I don't have the words now, but it'll come.....then I will tell all I know, all you need to know too.
I am sorry. I tell you as soon as I have the words.
I think Asimov's theory was in the same line as the blackhole theory that I read many years ago in one of his books.
I think each backhole connects to a whitehole where matter moves from oneside to the other and back again when the matter runs out at one end. The blackhole changes state when that happens. It goes on forever. In the meantime, if one blackhole come in contact with another, they combine to form a bigger one. Just another thought.
Then the question comes, where did all these energy come from. May be in the beginning there was nothing...then there was a photon...and another one...and another one...
OR, may be the Universe is an effect of a cause, so alien that it is beyond our Universe...and we will never find it, because neither we nor the Universe can perceive that which is outside.
Tristan
GOOD ONE!:D
wet1 The size of a pea. In what we know of this universe anything seems possible.
Cris
From the last I've heard we're still expanding thankfully.(Hopefully!) Good theory!:D
Banshee
Just wanted to say "Hello!":D
Kmguru
Good theory.
What if blackholes are vacuum cleaners. They suck at one end blow from the other. So in one sense the big bang could be the black hole getting into a filthy spot and sucking it clean into are existence. Maybe the expanding universe is not that at all it's what we see when one of the many vacuums cleaners around us just cleaned up.(By the way the vacuum cleaner I'm talking about doesn't have a bag. But if it did then it exploded, then there might be a big bang?) The way I'm going it might need one.) What if this replaces the big bang and there's an infinite number of vacuum cleaners askew throughout spitting and blowing at one another recreating itself(The universe) all the time.
Banshee
08-31-01, 05:48 AM
You can laugh about me as much as you want.
In another forum I said already I go look for another thread or another forum.
I thought everybody has the right to write his/hers feelings and thoughts down.
Why are mine so laughable, tell me!!!
Do you know better, and do you know that for sure???
And Hello to you too.
Banshee
I believe that your last post was aimed at me. Sorry if I made you feel that way. As far as I remember I just said 'hello'. I was not laughing at your theory at all. I didn't comment on it because it made sense and I had no argument with it. From the bottom of my heart I apologize. You are an asset to this forum and I look forward to your continuing post.
sincerely,
Patrick.
Banshee
08-31-01, 12:10 PM
I am so sorry, think I've got moonsick.
The moon is almost ful and most of the time I am not to handle then......
So I apologize, I am a lunatic.....today
;)
Think I over reacted, so I am real sorry.....
banshee
Thank's for the words.:cool:
I didn't want to try the parachute.:D
I can't figure out why no one wanted to by it.:rolleyes:
Type to ya soon!
Red Devil
09-01-01, 09:39 AM
Wow, Tristan that was deep, deep enough to be almost the basis of a new religion! As far as the latest information goes on the Universe is that it is actually accelerating apart. Maybe it will accelerate far enough apart that it will no longer be a universe, just an infinite space with a few exotrillion atoms wandering about! Exotrillion I made up, no idea what it means! Interesting theory though Tris; if you make it to be another Einstein call me please!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Tristan
09-05-01, 11:37 AM
Hehe, thanks.:cool:
Originally posted by Tristan
Lately I have been reading Cosmos by Carl Sagan. While in the car I Brainstormed an idea. It answers questions but raises new ones... here it is.
The Universe has supposedley been created from the big bang. So where did all that matter in the big bang come from? My theory suggests that The universe is actually a black hole in a sense....... So work with me here..... A massive sun dies and creates a massive black hole. This black hole consums entire galaxies and tons of matter of the eons. The black hole is essentially a pouch of Matter from all the stuff it consumed. Of Course we can't see it. We can only see a black hole. But in the inside it's like a pouch. Now lets hypathetically say that all matter is reduced to say, Sub atomic particles when it goes through the Black hole. So there is and intensely compact pouch of protons, Neturons, and electrons Inside this Massive Black hole. Then something happens and The inside Just Starts exploding or changing quickly into a universe. The universe is only as big as the amount of matter in it at the begaining. but things change and when that explosion happens the black hole is somehow closed and we now have a brand new universe. This theory of mine is suggesting that there are many universes and One huge Cosmos. But does it stop there? This is my theory Of cosmic origin.Comments Are very welcome. I know it needs work but tI have 60 years at least., After all I am only 14.
:D :cool: :confused: first of all tell me ...who defined energy in the cosmos ?i mean, thats where particles and antiparticles are coming from.isn"t it?????
Banshee
09-25-01, 06:23 AM
In fact are we all materialized energy.
We all come from the Cosmos.
Everything is energy, in everything is energy.
Even in a stone, you can make fire out of it, easily, just a spark from the stone.
Your reality is different then mine.
I look to a tree in a different way then you do.
So my reality is different from yours and other people.
So there is no reality, which reality is the only real reality then?
You see.
Everybody has a different vision, on everything, and makes his/her own reality.
:)
We materialize ourselves here on Earth in the way we want to be, and in the way we are.
You come to Earth as a person who already knows his/her whole coming life.
That part is your Deeper Self.
That stays with you, through all your lifes.
that is only energy, this Deeper Self, but You are the energy.
The energy materializes on Earth in the baby you are when you will be born.
But in fact you know your whole life, and what is going to come in your further life.
Your Deeper Self has that wthin, you can't reach it, that is for safety and because you are not here to know all you have to do up front. But the way your life goes is set, up front.
Every person is on Earth because he/she has a mission to do here. It can be very simple and it can be very hard.
Every person shall get his/her own share of good and bad things.
And no, this is not the bible.
The bible is more cruel.
If you manage to live on Earth in the best way you can and you treat people well, then you will be treated well.
You get what you give!!
And this one is very true.
If you give anger and insults, don't look strange when you get something back,as nasty as what you yourself did.
You give good listening and real love and friendship, you will find love and friendship on your way.
Remember always, Material things are not as valuable as many people think....
You get, what you give...
The Cosmos gives Love.
:cool:
Jan Ardena
09-26-01, 11:46 AM
Tristan,
From experiance of our present sun, we can understand that it distributes heat and light, creates rain, which all in all creates and sustains life as we know it. If a sun was to collapse and become sucked into a black hole, it must be asked, where did the sun come from?
Love. Jan Ardena
Banshee
09-26-01, 12:50 PM
When the sun dies, the Earth dies...
Nothing more...Nothing less.
Originally posted by Banshee
In fact are we all materialized energy.
We all come from the Cosmos.
Everything is energy, in everything is energy.
Even in a stone, you can make fire out of it, easily, just a spark from the stone.
Your reality is different then mine.
I look to a tree in a different way then you do.
So my reality is different from yours and other people.
So there is no reality, which reality is the only real reality then?
You see.
Everybody has a different vision, on everything, and makes his/her own reality.
:)
We materialize ourselves here on Earth in the way we want to be, and in the way we are.
You come to Earth as a person who already knows his/her whole coming life.
That part is your Deeper Self.
That stays with you, through all your lifes.
that is only energy, this Deeper Self, but You are the energy.
The energy materializes on Earth in the baby you are when you will be born.
But in fact you know your whole life, and what is going to come in your further life.
Your Deeper Self has that wthin, you can't reach it, that is for safety and because you are not here to know all you have to do up front. But the way your life goes is set, up front.
Every person is on Earth because he/she has a mission to do here. It can be very simple and it can be very hard.
Every person shall get his/her own share of good and bad things.
And no, this is not the bible.
The bible is more cruel.
If you manage to live on Earth in the best way you can and you treat people well, then you will be treated well.
You get what you give!!
And this one is very true.
If you give anger and insults, don't look strange when you get something back,as nasty as what you yourself did.
You give good listening and real love and friendship, you will find love and friendship on your way.
Remember always, Material things are not as valuable as many people think....
You get, what you give...
The Cosmos gives Love.
:cool:
Printed this out and posted in on my wall. Wow Banshee. Ever thought of writing a book? I'd read it :)
Welcome to Sciforums, GRO$$.
You'd be suprised at the bits of wisdom that come from all over the world to here. The beliefs of people are wide and varied, reflecting the enviroment that they grew up in or just the way they have worked the world out for their own understanding.
MuliBoy
09-28-01, 03:34 AM
Yeah, quite heavy :)
Being located in this vortex one could say the universe might not be expanding, but by being slowly compacted as the pull increases, the further edges seem to move away :)
Anyone familiar with the novelty theory by Terrence McKenna? Time itself being sped up towards a final dimensional implosion where we meet the transcendal object at the end of time. Fits the idea of a black hole. A rip in space/time which slowly eats up the universe. Getting closer to the whirlpools centre the pull becomes stronger and faster. Speeding up time itself...
Just freestyling here :)
Banshee
09-28-01, 06:04 AM
Thank you Gro$$, for the compliment
:)
And MuliBoy.
Time is relative; The next second is past tence already..
;)
Don't you think it is crazy they made up 'Summer' and 'Winter'time in Europe??
We have 7 months 'Summertime' and 5 months 'Wintertime'.
What kind of logica is this?
They do with time whatever sooths them best.
So time is not real, if it can be changed that easily every time...
:p :p
MuliBoy
09-28-01, 07:09 AM
Yeah Banshee. I think all this physical reality stuff is quite irrevelant. It is a state of double think for me. On one hand there is the material space which has apparent rules and action/reaction stuff. Then we have the outer spirit which is totally unbound by this space.
Everyone is at a minimum 2 entities in the physical realm. 1 human and one spirit or soul which oversees and partakes in the human form. These two are both separated and one, depending on ones current mindset. My chosen view upon myself is through the eyes of the spirit. The physical me is my plaything :)
And everytime I interact with someone else, this person in turn creates another version of me which inhabits that persons subjective space. The me that someone else knows is not the me I know. Just as I create my version of that person.
Everything one sees and knows is just local phenomena. So in effect it is impossible to know anything relevant as long as one sees it through the local reality mesh.
I believe that attitude is the most important aspect of excistance. Mood is very infective among humans. Acting positive creates a lot of positive copies of oneself within other ppls realities :)
Whatīs this got to do with blackholes?....
Nothing I guess... Freestyling again!! :)
Banshee
09-28-01, 03:04 PM
That is what I mean with everybody has his own reality.
You see people and things with your eyes.
I see them with mine, so I see it different, with my eyes.
My reality.
:)
Then there are people who know you, but do not know you.
But no one knows you, like you know yourself.
Again another reality.
A loved one, who loves you, sees you again in an other way.
Again another reality.
And all this on one person.;)
What a reality's there are.
Just as much as dimensions.
Legio.
:p
Black holes???
Was the topic about black holes???
Since we got to the subject of different people's reality, heres an interesting poem by Emily Dickinson i read a bit ago about madness being sense (in anothers reality):
Much Madness is divinest Sense
------------------------------------------------------
Much Madness is divinest Sense---
To a discerning Eye---
Much Sense---the starkest Madness.
`Tis the Majority
In this, as All, prevail---
Assent---and you are sane---
Demur---you ?re straightway dangerous---
And handled with a Chain---
I guess it means that majority decides which reality is sane and which is mad.
Tristan
10-02-01, 06:24 PM
(Sniffle, Sniffle) wow it's amazing how fast the topic gets lost. Anywho, Ya sometimes I look around and feel wierd becasue I say to myself, Is what I am Seeing really there? Am What I am touching really there? Strange. I am talking about that personal reality thing. Kinda funny. Dam I love Sciforums. I can actually talk to intelligent people. Finding someone like that in my school would be like finding a grain amoungst a whole beach.
MuliBoy
10-03-01, 04:22 AM
Yeah, reality is very much the tyranny of the masses.
It is not widely known just how much the subjective perception can alter physical space.
Donīt consume, produce :)
Banshee
10-03-01, 05:03 AM
You know, it is good to have different reality's.
What would life be as everybody was the exactly same.
No fun at all.:)
And nothing to learn too.
Because that is our first and most important reason of being in these reality's.
Learn from eachother.
In PEACE.
Not in war, as what happens so often nowadays.
But the topic was 'Black Holes'.
Sorry I drifted off.
;)
Black Holes are one of the mysteries of the Universe.
Maybe it sucks up everything in its neighbourhood.
Maybe then you come in a different Universe.
Who knows, it can be everything.
It doesn't have to be bad, because maybe it pulls everything with it. It can lead to a whole new Universe, which is another reality again.
:rolleyes:
So you see.
You never know, with these reality's.
Bye.
Talk to you later.
:p :p
Tristan,
You reflect with your theory on something that has long been speculated on. That is that if the universe is closed, meaning that sooner or later every thing stops expanding and starts contracting then what happens? To that end this hypothysis was thought to be the possible rebirth of a new universe with the possibility of different physical laws and properties than what we now have today. Light might well travel at a different s[eed in another universe and not be the same constant that we know of. It has immense appeal to physists at the time becomes of the conservation of energy and matter that nature seems to be so fond of.
The latest thoughts are that the universe will continue expanding and there will be no big crunch. But understand, the basis for this is not by a large margin. Add that to the fact that we can not yet account for all of the mass and matter that we think should be there. It may come out yet that we are in for the big crunch as all is not yet throughly known.
Banshee
10-04-01, 05:41 AM
Exactly.
All scientists act like they know it all.
They do not.
In fact, they know nothing.
They are guessing in the wild.
For they do not know a thing about the whole Universe.
So they talk and talk and talk.
Theory after theory.
Yeah, so they keep busy, no?
;)
josharuni
10-17-01, 01:00 PM
The black hole theory is very nice...... But that still does not explain how the universe came to be or where it came from: We get sucked into a black hole, then another universe pops out....It goes on and on.
which came first the black hole or the universe?
Banshee
10-17-01, 01:23 PM
The Cosmos.
Tristan
10-17-01, 04:25 PM
Who knew?! I am a fan of Infinate Regression
Riddler
10-18-01, 02:13 AM
I was going to post some of the great quotes from the various members here, but there are too many! So I am just going to post my view, which tends to run in the same direction as all of yours:
It seems to me that the inevitable conclusion of gravity and therefore Black Holes, is to collapse all matter/energy of our "known Universe" into an infinately small ~~~quasi-mass~~. Because of this intense gravitational pressure & inertia that will then be put on this mass, I believe that the only conclusion will be that all Black Holes will come together eventually & form one Black hole. This one Black Hole will continue to compress itself out of existance altogether ! ! ! Or at least out of the existance that we presently know of.
patman:
What if blackholes are vacuum cleaners. They suck at one end blow from the other. So in one sense the big bang could be the black hole getting into a filthy spot and sucking it clean into are existence. Maybe the expanding universe is not that at all it's what we see when one of the many vacuums cleaners around us just cleaned up.(By the way the vacuum cleaner I'm talking about doesn't have a bag. But if it did then it exploded, then there might be a big bang?) The way I'm going it might need one.) What if this replaces the big bang and there's an infinite number of vacuum cleaners askew throughout spitting and blowing at one another recreating itself(The universe) all the time.
I could not agree more with patman's quote. If the matter of our universe becomes infinately compressed into nothingness, then I expect that this compressed mass will emerge in another universe completely and be a mirror reproduction of our universe, as it expands.
I would further add this & it may seem to be a little like some of the wonderful things that have been written by Banshee earlier:
That the mass/energy of our universe is the result of patman's "vacuum cleaner idea." And that as the the total mass/energy of the previous universe collapsed into nothingness, the exact patterns of that universe--life & lifelessness, galaxies and solar systems, were all ....condensed as a perfect representation of what this previous universe once was ! ! !
Everything about what this previous universe once was, was logically collected and compressed into the Black Hole that I believe has now exploded & made our own universe (Big Bang). From the entire matter/energy of the previous universe, I believe that we (our universe) has come into existance.
But here is the kicker, now people: It seems to me that as our universe has formed, it may well be something of a mirror image of the previous universe! :cool: :cool: :cool: And that our very existance now, right down through the microscopic and even into the subatomic-- may well be something that has happened many times over, in a sort of a "bouncing effect" between possibly two different planes of space/time. Or perhaps like a pendulum that swings back and forth between a "Super Black Hole" & a "Big Bang".
Over the years, I have often considered this and continue to believe strongly that our own universe will also eventually stop expanding and begin it's journey back into that from which it came. That it will also continue to collapse in upon itself, if only by the extra energy provided by it's momentum (inertia), until it too pushes all of it's matter out of existance and explodes into yet another universe. Perhaps after this, I really do think that our universe will live again, and so shall we!
In another 20 billion years, we (you and I) may well post at sciforums again-- these very same words....... in another type of universe ! ! ! The reasoning being that all patterns will be reproduced exactly, whether through explosion or implosion.
Fractal Geometry.
There seems to be something that is almost mystical about it. Repeating patterns of chaos........ There is a feeling that I somehow understand some of these things, yet I have no words to describe them. But I inwardly know that there are some kind pattern sets that are truly the "Law Givers " that efffect total dominion over our universe. It cannot be a coincidence. It's almost as though these patterns exist on their own, while matter & energy "cling" to these patterns and are guided by them to form galaxies, solar systems, planets, life, ..... .org:D
<A HREF="http://www.Galaxies/solar systems/planets/life.org" TARGET="main">Galaxies/solar systems/planets/life.org</A>:D Oh well.......:rolleyes:
So....... when are our politicians going to let US grow our own marijuana? After all, it's not like a "PotHead" crashed a Jumbo jet into the damned Pentagon ! ! !:D
later people................:cool:
Banshee
10-18-01, 03:10 AM
I agree on the Mirror-Theory Riddler, you are right there.
There seems to be a mirror of this Universe, and a mirror of that one and a mirror of that one. And so on.
Universe doesn't end....
Things you say are already been said, you will say them again, for all is in you, up front..
Oh, how difficult talking again.
I can't explain it very well in english.
Will some one who knows what I mean, take this over from me and explain in good english what I mean to say here?
Please?
In fact is this: Because you are materialized energy, everything you project here on Earth, when you materialize yourself here, is in the energy you are. As soon as you materialize yourself on Earth, all is hidden inside of you, up front. Better this way?
And I really am looking to understand that Black Hole theory, I do understand what you, and scientists say about the Black Holes, sucking everything up in a certain time...
I do not think that way...
I think it is a vortex to a lot of other Dimensions.
The way the Aliens come with their space-ships?
I really do not know, but I am getting to believe it that way.
Because there are much more Universes and much more Dimensions.
I wonder if humans ever find out how it really is, up there, in Space, with all its Black Holes and other mysteries I would love to know.
It keeps interesting.
This discussion.
Lets go on, look where it leads us, with all those different ways of thinking.
It is very interesting...
:) :)
Regarding Blackhole creating a mirror universe idea:
I would like to differ slightly (not that I can prove anything...). We Easterners believe that Souls are born and die to perfect themselves to a higher order of existence through learning (or not learning in a specific life cycle).
Just like Fractal geometry, if this (our life cycle) is a microcosm, then the macrocosm could be that Blackholes create universes which is a life cycle itself and the universes die to be reborn. And in the process they learn the arrangements, changing physical laws, shapes, and so on and evolve to a higher order of what we can not comphrehend exactly - may be the goal is to be dark matter...
In this scenario, it will not be an exact replica of the previous universe but somewhat close yet more perfect by each cycle. From Chaos comes Order type of formulation.
What do you think Banshee? I am sure you understand what I am getting at....
Banshee
10-18-01, 01:32 PM
Yes, I think you are right.
It is true, I learned that, we come back (reincarnate) to learn more and be better in the next life. There are different layers in the Cosmos, every layer is slightly more 'perfect' then the other. In the proces we can reach the highest layer only by living every life more intense then the former life and 'see' what we are here for.
In the layers live entities, Light-Beings and other Beings who have learned and are gone to a different dimension, because they learned all they had to learn on Earth. In the next Dimensions are differences and again other layers where Beings live.
And so on.
But I guess you can say it in the way of the Universe and the Black Holes, and the cycles who getting a little more perfect every time, like Kmguru says yes.
It is difficult to say in english, sorry.
Kmguru is right. I try to tell what I feel and learned about it.
Pollux V
10-19-01, 09:19 AM
I sort-of understand fractals, yes they are very cool. I thought once you could use the fractal ideal and apply it to a persons life vs. that of a species or countries life. As we are young (lez use the US for example) we are aggresive and cannot make decisions easily, maybe some of us are inherently racist. As we grow older we start to succumb to our wants a needs (need I say more), and as we grow much older we are intelligent and kind, and control other countries which we consider our children.
My theory of th e universe is simple: someone went faster than the speed of light and expanded infinitely, therefore we are living inside someone. I'll be back later, gtg.
Banshee
10-19-01, 01:16 PM
No, not inside someone.
In the Cosmos, or the Universe, if you like that word better...
MY how things progress whenI am gone...
Sorry for the lack of time in responding. My new computer has an XP bug and must be sent back to the factory so that they can give Microsoft the straight scoop and I must wait until I recieve a new one before I can return to Sciforums on a regular basis.
However, conservation of energy is a law that nature is well known for. This seems to be at odds with current theory that says we have an open and continually expanding universe. If we have a continually expanding universe then we will never see the total accumulated mass in a black hole with all the mass assembled from the original that started at the Big Bang. Instead the black holes will never have enough gravity to pull everything together with distance already so large and still expanding. If that was so then what exists now would be in danger of being gobbled up. What would happen would be that once black holes consumed all available mass they would sit there for eternity as they were. The distances between such would continue to larger and larger with no hope of mass ever getting close enough to finish the job of vaccuming the rest of the universe. Everything just gets farther apart. Energy levels would continue to drop until even the atoms have no motion and the electrons come to rest. At such point then entrophy will have run its course and the universe will be dead with not a spark of energy anywhere within it.
Pollux V
10-19-01, 05:41 PM
Wouldn't the black holes get closer and closer eventually? Think of it this way: right now you are feeling the tug of gravity of Tau Ceti. It is extremely light, but it is there. The gravitational tug of Earth reaches out to the edge of the universe, only it is so incredibly minute...
Anyway, if there was nothing in the way of the Blackholes they would eventually collide, because each one is pulling on the other. Now that would be something to witness: two colliding black holes. Time to bring the camera!
Stryder
10-20-01, 02:06 AM
I have been theorising some more and I know someone on here has began touching upon what I feel is the truth.
It's taken me a while to get to the point of writing this as I have been theorising over this and trying to expand the information further (But I lack the all important diagrams that take ages to create. Although you wouldn't suspect that when you see them)
Originaly I placed my theory of how mass is created through a blackhole on this topic (someone nearer the start of this thread)
But what I neglected to explain in detail was my understanding of a blackholes existance.
I believe that the creation of a blackhole creates a Universal Parallel of the former Universe. This means that the universe in which a blackhole exists can be an Alternative in comparison to our own.
At first people think a blackhole as a funnel shape, similar to a tornado or whirlpool, sucking what ever exists in the universe into it's centre to do what ever occurs.
I found this understanding to be slightly floored, mostly because everything seems to have some polar structure at an atomic level, so there must be poles to a funnel. This gave me a clue as to the theory that there isn't one funnel, there is in fact two.
(I know Riddler mentioned this also, but his theory differs slightly)
Http://chatsoba.port5.com/images/bh1.gif
(See above)At first, I toyed with the notion that two funnels, one positive or normal space, meets a negative antispace (where Anti-matter exists). And I began thinking about how the funnels meet.
Most people would say that a World Face would exist, where the two funnels meet, but they would percieve them contacting each other without entering into each other.
I percieved that it would be possible that the funnel points could actually exist within the opposite funnel, namely the normal point's exists within the belly of the anti-funnel. Where the funnel point is within the belly I realised that a gravity flow might pull that funnel point back through into the centre of it's own funnel, making it fold on itself. (I've left out the World Face)
Http://chatsoba.port5.com/images/bkhole.gif
This gave me a new direction, because it meant that in the centre of these funnels would be a spherical gravity well, and also a spherical energy excression. But that wasn't all when you placed paralels into the equation.
Http://chatsoba.port5.com/images/bkholeps.gif
(See above) I had this notion, If he two funnels meet in the centre (Symbolised by the hourglass shape layed horizontally) That they would enduce a Matter/Anti-Matter friction reaction and a Fusion point, because all mass and light is accelerated, they "Jump space" and appear from frequency in aspace where the blackhole funnels don't exist.
This I perceive as our Sun and other Stars throughout the universe.
But what does this mean? When it means there is a universe (Or should I say time) that a blackhole exists, while at the same time (or parallel) a star exists, while again at the same time Space exists, all at what would be called the same Place.
We see the sun, and it's gravity is made from what left over blackhole gravity in our parallel universe.
The problem is as the universe continues to grow, and certain superconductive states occur, our gravity is weakened (along with the excersion of time) This is where somebody who studies the "Schrodinger's Cat experiment" can get a rough idea of what happens to our star on a larger scale.
Http://chatsoba.port5.com/images/bh2.gif
I percieved that the funnels could eventually lose their mutual gravitational attraction and begin parting, which would in fact
stretch our sun one way and flatten it another. This is where I think a SuperNova would occur to our sun, and the destruction of a blackhole.
I hope to clean this up when I have a bit more time and my computer isn't so buggy.
Banshee
10-20-01, 04:36 AM
All that Black Hole theories of you.
Man, it gets better every time.
Universe is not having the Black Holes to suck the whole Universe up all of a sudden, or not all of a sudden.
You are babbling again.
Why are these Black Holes no Vortexes? How do you know?
Because some scientist tells you so. There can be a million scientists tell me this, it is not so...
Black Holes are very little known off. Scientists act like they do understand everything and that they know everything.
But is that true?
I wonder...
Maybe you should too...
This Universe, this Cosmos, where we all come from, like beams of energy, materializing on Earth.
Tell me it is different...this time I want proof, real proof!!!
No nice pictures or theories I heard a thousand times and ofter.
Nobody knows what the Black Holes are standing for in the Universe, it is all speculation...
But they (the Black Holes) must have a purpose, because, if not, they would not exist.
I just want to point out that it is not proven that black holes even exist. There are thories out there that prove the anomalies in space believed to be caused by their gravity as something else.
Stryder
10-20-01, 02:54 PM
I'm glad you pointed that out GRO$$, as sometimes I do not take into account that people don't already know those points. (I already did, but I neglected to inform anyone within my post)
I know also that my posts might sometimes have Keywords appear that seemingly have now descriptive passage entailing what their meaning is, I ask anyone that has that problem to mention it and I will try and describe it.
I actually do find it quite difficult to write posts sometimes, because I have within my mindsight the whole understanding, but it's a collage of images and small technical spouts of data, that I find increasingly hard to unify in some coherant text.
I've read most of the posts in this thread and would like to add my 2 bobs worth :-)
It is true that scientists do not know everything, and they are the first to admit this, but their theories are back by observational evidence.
Black holes are pretty well understood, though it must be remembered that a BH is the event horizon of the singularity which resides inside. It is what happens at the singularity that is unknown. Saying that the evidence could mean something other than a BH is like saying Shakespeares work was not written by him but by someone else with the same name.
The beginning of this universe is also well known to 10<sup>-43</sup>sec. We do not know what was before this time. Yet.
There is the abundance of the lighter elements, the CMBR, the redshift in distant galaxies to back these theories.
While the speculation is interesting in this thread, almost none of it is backed by any observational evidence.
Banshee
10-21-01, 04:44 AM
Boris, are you sure of that?
No.
You can't be sure, because, as you say, nobody knows exactly how it is up there.
And things scientists have calculated, I do not believe in at the first place.
Scientists, always the same...Do an experiment in a lab on people who don't even know exactly what they do. Because these scientists lie about it, they do not tell the truth.
And Mr. Stryderunknown, you should know better, then to say this. Now you lost me. I thought I understood you quite well, but I am wrong here I guess. I am sorry about that. I like your posts, and always read them, so I don't see your problem.
In my head I know it very well yes.
But to put it all down in words, in english. That is to much and to difficult.
And probably for nothing, everybody has his/her own opinion and that is good.
That is why we discuss the matter. I think it is a good discussion. It is good not to share the same theory's, people need other opinions, so they can make one perfectly, or almost perfect theory which what they can work and discuss further.
So come on people, lets talk on here....
Boris, I hope you have a good time at the Sci forums. You give good reply. ;)
Thanks for the compliment Banshee :-)
"Scientists, always the same...Do an experiment in a lab on people who don't even know exactly what they do. Because these scientists lie about it, they do not tell the truth."
Not all experiments are done in labs. Observational evidence is gathered and the reasons why this is how it is, is explained with theories that best fit the facts of the obsevation.
All the technology you use is based on science, GPS use time dilation theories to give you accurate info on you position. Quantum for the semiconductors in your 'puta. Saying all scientists lie is a rather unjust accusation to level at them and not deserved. I am sure you can't mean that.
I should add that everyone is more than welcome to come and participate in the Aussie forum. The more the merrier. Always good to have input from different people.
Welcome to Sciforums, Boris2, we are always glad to have you here. Yes it is true that very little is backed by observational evidence here within the thread. But it is at a level that everyone can particate and feel comfortable within. But please particpate as sometimes that is exactly what is needed to keep the course fo the thread. Again, welcome.
Banshee
10-21-01, 11:07 AM
Yes, yes, yes, I see again, the same as always.
What do you want to know Mr. Boris?
You like some guineapigs to test?
It won't happen, not here.
Are you no scientist?
What do you want then? Know what we are originally? You can guess how many of us are human, and how many of us are Alien...
Try to find out...
Good luck with it, and your experiments.
Bye.
;) :p
Pollux V
10-21-01, 02:14 PM
shrike=human.
Humans appreciate shrike.
Meat.
you have the same problem that many religons have, you speak of all these mini (black hole)galaxys in one big cosmos, but what is, how was it created and who created the big one? Religion speaks of a GOD who created all, but who created the god? but all the same interesting thought..
Tom
15
Tristan
10-22-01, 03:15 PM
hey! Like my new Avatar! Its a wormhole I made in photoshop
Banshee
10-23-01, 03:47 AM
Yes, like your avatar, a wormhole.
Through which the Aliens come our way....Beware, you never know what comes through such a wormhole, so be careful with that avatar.
:p
What nonsense, god created the Universe? And then, who created god?
Man, what stupid questions.
I don't repeat myself every time, I am not a cd, you can put on return you know.
One time, for you Tom.
There is no god creator who created the Universe.
The god is made up by humans.
The Force that created the Cosmos is called: 'All That Is...'
You see?
I explained the whole item for over 5 times now. I guess if you really want to know, you have to look it up.
Because it is a lot of writing every time. And like I said, I am not a cd, you can put on return, though I sound like one now.
I am sorry, it is not that I do not want to explain it to you, what I think is happening. It is, that probably you yourself, think very different.
That is why I think it is better if you look it up in former posts, so I don't write all down again, but you can react on it in your own thoughts. Ok?
If you want to react, it is never necessary, only if you think it is from importance to you.
Have a nice day. Bye.
:)
Tristan
10-23-01, 07:22 AM
"The Cosmos Is All That Is, Or Ever Was, Or ever will be." Carl Sagan
Like the Avatar, Tristan. If you support the BB theory then there was a time when it did not exist.
Banshee
10-23-01, 10:53 AM
Yes, exacrtly.
What do you have to say now, then?
Banshee
10-23-01, 10:57 AM
Sorry, I forgot.
Who says the Cosmos never existed for all times being?
Who says the Cosmos was not forever here?
Who says the Cosmos doesn't exist for a long, long time?
We are Cosmos, we all are energy from the Cosmos, but it doesn't matter that you do not realize. It may come to you, when necessary...
How about One God per Galaxy? :D
<<...The Universe has supposedley been created from the big bang. So where did all that matter in the big bang come from? My theory suggests that The universe is actually a black hole...>>
Certainly, the Big Bang theory is the leading rational hypothesis of the Universe's origin. It is the leading hypothesis because it is currently the hypothesis amongst many that is best supported by available empirical evidence, and because it has survived all previous attempts (not necessarily all future attempts) at falsification.
As to where all the matter came from, it all came from the energy contained within the singularity that the Big Bang theory hypothesizes predated the Universe in its present form. Matter is congealled energy, coming into existence as energy loses energy -- cools.
A more recent theory that seems to explain how the Universe came into being without some of the unexplained aspects of the Big Bang theory that arise from its tenets is the Ekpyrotic Theory.
The Ekpyrotic theory suggests that our Universe began not as a Big Bang expansion of a space-time singularity but as a collision between two 4-dimensional membvranes in a 5-dimensional Universe.
That there may be more dimensions in existence than the 4 that we know -- length, width, heighth and time -- is also borne out by String Theory in which 11 or 13 dimensions may exist, most fold in upon themselves and out of view of us 4-d'ers.
Those interested can do the search on "Ekpyrotic".
"In the ekpyrotic model, when the two three-dimensional worlds collide and "stick," the kinetic energy in the collision is converted to the quarks, electrons, photons, etc. that are confined to move along three dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot Big Bang phase begins without a singularity. The universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the Big Bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. "
That can also mean that the black holes in one brane could be emptying the matter to another brane. If each brane is moving at the same time, that could create the new world.
<<...That can also mean that the black holes in one brane could be emptying the matter to another brane. If each brane is moving at the same time, that could create the new world...>>
Say what?
You presume that before the branes collide black holes exist.
So much for reading comprehension.
(Sorry, not intending to step on toes, as the new guy on the block.)
Tristan
10-25-01, 03:38 PM
Argh!. I Do and don't believe in the BB theory. i can understand it but i am adding a new twist. Where the (beep) did all the matter come from. YOU CAN"T CREATE SOMETHING, OUT OF NOTHING. So, my theory extends the BB theory. Truly I believe in infinite regression AKA "there's always a bigger predator" Or Protons-Then to Quarks- Then to Nuetrinos- Then to whatever- and whatever, ect. Infintie regression plays into the universe by solving our deepest question by simply saying don't ask it. Where did everything come from? Because you can not, under no circumstances create something from nothing. just imagine being but in a room with just a white floor, 4 white walls, and a white ceiling, and being told to build a nuclear bomb.
So...... "The Cosmos Is All That Is, Or ever Was, Or Ever Will be." Carl Sagan
Hello Mr. G
You can assume anything in this forum if you are formulating new ideas and work from there. This is like genetic algorithm. Some may survive others wont. Specifically in an area that is so esoteric that physical proof may be years off....
Think-out-of-the-box....think different....
<<...Think-out-of-the-box....think different....>>
Is this an admonishment that I should adopt a truly open mind, wherein I am able to consider even the most infinitesimally likely a posteriori hypothesis to be essentially valid?
MuliBoy
10-28-01, 08:52 AM
Yees :)
There is no way of dismissing a idea without examining it first. Every idea presented by anyone is a conclusion based on the preconceptions and perceptions of this individual.
Where does the real and the imaginary end or begin?
Where is the proof of matter being matter outside of the interface of human intelligence?
This cannot be proved with the perception limited by the means of its dimensional capabilities, so in essence there is no way to prove #1 or #2.
It is all assumptions and a reality-tunnel built upon what one can see, touch and hear.
Solid reality and "truth" is defined by the individual (or individual accepting the fable it is being told). As a scientist one can choose to only believe or trust what ones contraptions and tools say is real or valid. As a shaman one can choose to believe or trust what ones totem tells you in a visionquest.
Both ways are just as correct and still only slivers of the big picture.
A open mind is just what itīs said to be, open.
A closed mind only works with what it begins with.
Humour me :)
Rambler
10-28-01, 07:37 PM
Just a thought....
Tristan you wrote:
"Argh!. I Do and don't believe in the BB theory. i can understand it but i am adding a new twist. Where the (beep) did all the matter come from. YOU CAN"T CREATE SOMETHING, OUT OF NOTHING. So, my theory extends the BB theory. Truly I believe in infinite regression AKA "there's always a bigger predator" Or Protons-Then to Quarks- Then to Nuetrinos- Then to whatever- and whatever, ect. Infintie regression plays into the universe by solving our deepest question by simply saying don't ask it. Where did everything come from? Because you can not, under no circumstances create something from nothing. just imagine being but in a room with just a white floor, 4 white walls, and a white ceiling, and being told to build a nuclear bomb. "
Creating something from nothing is impossible due to the laws of physics...would you agree that what ever created the universe BB or otherwise also created the laws which we observe as the laws of physics and hence what ever happened before the universe was created may not have been bound by the conservation of matter etc????
MuliBoy said: <<...There is no way of dismissing a idea without examining it first...>>
There is not enough time in any person's life, or even in the timespan of a civilization, to give all ideas equal weight and equal scrutiny until each is thoroughly tested for relevence and validity.
Idea triage is a necessity, even for a so-called open mind. You have to judge which ideas are of more relevence to you than others.
<<...Where does the real and the imaginary end or begin?..>>
At the moment you decide you don't have the time to deal with nonsense.
You have to adopt a BS filter or your brain becomes BS.
Tristan
10-31-01, 06:27 PM
Rambler,
Interesting. Very Interesting.:rolleyes:
You can also say that if it wasn't goverened by the current laws of physics because whatever created the universe created those laws, there is no way that a mere human can comprehend the idea that the universe sprang up out of knowhere and it could be created from nothing because it wasn;t goverened by the laws of physics we know. Example, Can you really, truly comprehend nothing? Nothing meaning nothing, no molecules nor atoms, ect.
And if there is a forth dimension can you truly comprehend what is so plain to the 4th dimensional beings(if there are any) the way they see. I understand 3 dimesions as length, width and height. How could you possibly have a 4th dimension? Time...... No, we already have time.
Rambler
10-31-01, 08:18 PM
Your spot on, personally I don't believe we will ever know how the universe was created or where the matter came from unless that information is given to us by something which is beyond our known universe....as far as dimensions > then 3 (time not being a physical dimension) our brains just aren't geared to comprehend that kind of reality...we can infer or guess at higher dimensions through indirect means but that's about the best we'll do....humans will never have a first hand experience of higher dimensional realities, we can't even imagine it....
Tristan,
<<...Can you really, truly comprehend nothing?..>>
Can you really, truly sell any critically thinking person on the notion that 'nothing' is more of an intellectually-challenging idea than is a non-evident, meddling, supernatural entity that plays with us like we are Barbie and Ken clay-mation props?
Rambler
10-31-01, 10:27 PM
In view of your last post I feel I should clarify my own posts, when I say "something beyond our universe", or "whatever created the universe" I am in NO WAY suggesting a God.
Phew glad that's off my chest :D
MuliBoy
11-04-01, 09:33 AM
Ahh. But time is all we have :)
Yes, of course one has to sort information. But itīs also important to be aware of the operations of the BS-filter, and to constantly upgrade it so one wont have to miss out on golden thoughts when itīs running on automatics.
One should be aware that by adopting a persona these often come with a gestalt. Categorizing oneself as scientist, spiritualist, communist or whatever brings along the trappings of the stereotype or archetype.
These gestalts come equipped with a standard perceptive filter tuned for that reality-tunnel. Essentially one can become a NonPlayingCharacter. A stereotype that follows its preset routines.
That is why I try to modify my programming whenever I can.
BS?
BullShit or BeliefSystem? :D
<<...One should be aware that by adopting a persona these often come with a gestalt. Categorizing oneself as scientist, spiritualist, communist or whatever brings along the trappings of the stereotype or archetype. These gestalts come equipped with a standard perceptive filter tuned for that reality-tunnel. Essentially one can become a NonPlayingCharacter. A stereotype that follows its preset routines...>>
Whew. So much for people's attempts to force me into their idea of a, so-called, truly "open mind", against my better judgement.
It's good that all categories of gestalts are abhorant.
:D
ETrnitup
11-07-01, 03:06 PM
Your theory does, in fact raise more questions than answers. I have found it easier not to think about the origins of the universe in such ways. I can tell you how I think of this issue by a brief hypothesis of mine. Please bare with me.
Think of ants (yes those little black insects), they go about their business doing what their supposed to be doing and they interact with each other in many ways. How do you think they view us humans? The answer is that their anatomy does not allow them to think in such ways , it is impossible for them to understand us or how the world works. But they perfectly understand their own world and know exactly how it works and what they are to do to make it work. Stay with me, now imagine that we are just like the ants in comparison to some supreme life force of some sort. Our universe may be a small little part of something much larger (the ant mound compared to the Earth) that our anatomy does not allow us to possibly understand. There may be some kind of supreme beings looking down on us and our galaxy and\or universe much in the same way we look at ants. I believe this may very well be the way it is.
The question is where does this end? Who or what or what is the nature of the MOST supreme being. This being has been indealized as the God of many different cultures and faiths. Thanks for listening and sharing your thoughts.
Creator? Alien watchers? ;)
I guess I just don't understand people's irrational need to feel watched over and told what to do.
It's somewhat disturbing to observe so many adults behaving like they're still living at home with their parents, and will never leave.
:D
Banshee
11-09-01, 07:19 AM
Because we are all just materialized energy bemed into an Eart-bound body, the Cosmos exists from energy and energy only.
There seem to be very much more Galaxy's like these.
All different Spheres, with all different Energy-Beings, some have ever been in a human body.
The Planet Earth where we live is like a learning school for us, to learn to live in balance with all living species on this beautiful, very alive, Planet Earth.
But what is the human race doing now??
They are not civilizing itself. They are on the way to the destruction of all this, because they have forgotten how to keep on paying attention to Earth and Nature.
They prefer material things and want more and more. Humans become paranoid, like they are afraid other humans will know what they posess and what they think. They lost the track and that is a shame...:confused:
If humans ever learn to live in peace and balance with themselves and Earth, they shall understand much better how the Cosmos, where we all come from, works.
And maybe are these so called Black Holes vortexes to other Galaxy's....I really would have the chance to go look, but maybe I will get the chance after this Eart-bound life.
It is not for nothing too that we are reborn to go on learning. Til it is enough and your Deeper Self may stay in the Spheres.
Tristan
11-09-01, 10:51 PM
Mr. G , Do I detect a hint of insult in your last comment or did i Misunderstand?:confused: :mad:
Originally posted by kmguru
may be the Universe is an effect of a cause, so alien that it is beyond our Universe...and we will never find it, because neither we nor the Universe can perceive that which is outside.
i just read it.now why is that KM always makes me think more?
in so small words,he'll say so much that you'll take awhile to think and digest it.
i am not complaining,i am just saying that you"re great thinker KM,keep up to it,oh and by the way Tristan's thread should be thread with greatest reponse ever given to any,so it should be given a "HALL OF FAME";) :cool: just kewl man.
Banshee
11-12-01, 04:00 PM
Mr. G. should learn to have a little more respect for humans who are some different then the usual ones.
Then there are very disturbing messages of the erase of 2/3 of the human race within the next 40 years because of all their destructive and polluted behaviour here on Planet Earth.
The messges are coming through clearer and clearer and I heard them from at least 12 other humans in exactly the same words I have got them.
All this religion wars and all our hateful and harmful doings to eachother and in particular to Planet Earth are leading us straight to the erase of the human race.
Only the ones who nurture and take care of Earth and Nature will remain.
The ones of us who got these messages are told to pass them through as quickly and far as we can to try to save what is going to be lost, without any doubt.
So give me your disbelieve, I did my job and will post it as long as necessarry.
A lot of Psychics have had exactly the same messages in exactly the same words, it is a REAL warning, the LAST warning.
Stop your destructive behaviour, turn around and THINK about it.
How silly it may sound into your ears, it is the truth. We are being watched and it is now decided. The human race is heading straight down the line to its own destruction.
You cannot simply do whatever you want, there are rules bound to your staying here on Earth. You misabuse Earth and Nature in a so bad way that there will be a MAJOR Natural disaster within the next 40 years which will erase 2/3 of the human race.
So Earth can calme down and there will be a chance for others to try to live their lifes in the proper way on Earth and make Her whole again and healthy.
Normally I never post what I hear from the Watchers of Earth, this time we are all told to spread the word, everywhere and as fast as we can.
NO NONSENSE HERE, TRUTH.
But it is your good right to call me crazy, I did my job, I post it where ever I can. So don't say you didn't know when the time comes, for the time is coming near rather quickly now.
I know you all think I am a craze. That is why I never, ever post 'things' like this, but it is ordered to us now.
Please take notice of this and watch what you are doing. Stop your destructive behaviour NOW....
So have a good laugh about this, but you heard the message, don't forget it!!!!
The Watchers of Earth have had enough of all this damage and destruction and the way humans behave towards one another.
They have the right and the power to do what is necessarry to save Earth from its pests and they will do so without hesitating.
Be more gentil towards others, don't be so narrow-minded and look some further then you usually do.
And let this 'war' in Afghanistan stop at once, for this is the main reason the messages get coming more often and more urgent.
With all your respect, I don't want to hear any dumb laughter from one of you narrow-minded humans, for I only did what I was ordered to do.
So let me be. Ok?
Thank you.
:confused:
Tristan,
Yes, you did, and you did not.
Think of it as a group 'hug'. :rolleyes:
Banshee,
It would be nice if the world could be the way you want it to be -- the way our respective literary, history or science books say that it used to be -- before the global human population grew to where that sense of Utopia was lost.
So whom amongst us shall be killed to reduce the planet's population to Utopian-supporting levels?
Of course, no sane, compassionate person would ever actually advocate reclaiming Utopia from the ashes of genocidal pyres.
So that leaves what was the past in the past, never to be regained. You know, you can never go home.
Now, unlike you, I want the world population to continue to grow, to grow wholesale until the amount of life-sustaining material resources on this ball of rock has been so consumed by humanity that, if species Homo Sapiens Sapiens is to continue to survive, humanity will rise off its collective Gluteous Maximi and get the hell off this ball of rock and fan out across the cosmos in search of new Utopias.
You seem to have an afinity for the past. Think back about 65 Million years. The most successful class of vertebrates -- the Dinosaurs, already having lived on Earth for 140 Million years -- were smacked out of existence like a fly by a fly swatter by a large rock that wanted to occupy the same place in spacetime as the Earth.
Some say that Darwin's Evolution is about survival of the fittest. Did you ever consider that that characterization is rather unenlightened, belying the underlying sophistication of those who champion the idea? Consider that for 140 million years the Dinosuars were among the fittest of all terrrestrial life forms, then SMACK and they were all gone.
Maybe Evolution is survival, not of the fittest, but of the most adaptable...the smartest.
Now, in about a Billion years the sun will undergo internal changes in the way it generates its energy from nuclear fusion. From these changes the sun will produce more energy than it does now. It will expand in size until its surface passes out over the Earth's own orbit about the sun.
Long, long before the sun's surface gets here, Earth will lose its atmosphere and oceans to evaporative heating. No matter what kind of Utopia exists on Earth at that time it will exist no more.
If by the time such things happen humanity has spread its seed to worlds scattered about the galaxy then Humanity can live on, in many possible Utopias, even though the Mother World is no more.
So, the way I see it, the human race can survive the ultimate destruction of Earth first by avoiding being killed by an impacting asteroid or comet andr, second, also avoid the evaporation of Earth by the sun by letting the humans procreate with gay abandon until population pressures force us of our lazy, Utopian asses and get the hell out of Dodge and on our way to the New Worlds.
To put it simply, I think that people who live in the past in search of Utopia are contributing to the death of us all, and forever.
What price for humanity your vision of Utopia?
Think of it as a Great Flood, Noah takes his asses across the Great Ocean to new, dry land-kinda thing.
:D
I don't recall many people crying for those left behind under the ocean of some deity's plan to save the human race from itself.
:rolleyes:
Banshee
11-13-01, 02:15 AM
Mr. G., you don't understand what I am telling here.
I never post like this, but now it is told that we spread the word. The ecosphere on Earth is so badly damaged by pollution and destruction that it is no longer possible to keep the human race on this Planet.
I knew you should come haunting me. I do not live in the past, just the opposite. You just don't understand.
I am not going to tell you how and what about myself, but the message has come to me in another way then you get them.
And unfortunatly there are a lot more like me who have had the same message. This time it is no pessimistic or as you say utopia thinking, oh no, wish it was.
This is dead serious and if I were you I should remember it well.
Then again, leave me be, as I asked. I am just passing through this message because we were told to do so.
If you don't can have a little respect, then hold your tongue, for you really do not know what you are talking about.
This is about the future, the very near future.
Can't you read? Are you blinded by your own arrogance?
I do not go further into this with you, for you just don't understand. You will know when the time has come and you are drowning in Noah's flood, as you say so nicely.
As far as it goes for the message I had to pass through to as many humans I can reach I will stop with this post because it is one message, very important, take notice of it or don't that is up to you.
Again, for the last time, can't you have a little respect for humans who are different then you and the most humans?
It was difficult for me to post this message at Sciforums because I know what a good laugh humans like you will have at me.
Well, that is not my concern, I did what I was asked to do.
This is of great importance to the human race, the last warning, for the Timekeepers have already decided.
But you don't know what to think of that, so you call it living in the past. The past????
This is about the very near future, within the next 40 years 2/3 of the human race will be erased from Earth, for they damaged the ecosphere that much that the Timekeepers cannot allow the human race to go on like this.
Only the ones who nurture and live close to Earth and Nature will remain.
Well, I repeated it all for you, do you understand now that it is not the past I am talking about?
And it is not the past I am living in, I live in the present heading for the future which brings a lot of trouble on my mind now.
I never asked for being a messenger of dark times to come.
But it has been made very clear to me that I have to pass the message to as many humans I can reach.
That is the only reason I posted it. I never do post 'things' like this, never ever.
In this I had no choice.
But you may go on picking at me. It seems to bring you joy and a lot of fun. Wish I felt so funny now...
Let me be in peace, I had to deliver this message, I really have no choice here.
So I will not come back to this message. I passed it through to you here at Sciforums, while taking the risk to be called stir crazy, but eventhough I did.
This is the end of my message and I won't get back to it.
I just had to deliver it to so many humans I can reach.
Have your good laugh Mr. G., now you still have the chance and for the very last time, leave me be in peace.
This was really difficult to do for me. Posting this message at Sciforums, for I do not want humans here to think I am crazy or what so ever, I am not crazy, far away from that.
I also am not the only one who is passing this message.
Obviously I am the only one at Sciforums, wish there was someone else here who knows....
Wishful thinking, but I took the risk, just to make sure everybody knows it and can interprate it as they want, but it is a serious message, a serious last warning.
Pay some respect Mr. G. it will do you no harm.
I feel very uneasy about posting the message here at Sciforums, but I did it anyway because it is of great importance.
If you don't understand it, I am sorry for you.
But it gives you no right to lecture against me or laugh at me.
This is the end of my message post.
Pollux V
11-13-01, 08:13 AM
what will happen after this great purge, and will it happen all at once? Will technology be destroyed and will our race turn into a species of earth-loving nomads? Will we find another way to be so technological while taking care of the planet as well? I'm curious, as I cannot figure out why banshee would post this other than to help us (at the sciforums) help ourselves. There is no personal or financial gain by doing this.
PM me banshee, tell me what'll happen, if you do we have a better chance of saving people, I guess. You need to get your message farther into the recesses of the internet and back it up with prove, post a video of the keyboard typing itself or something. I am slightly skeptical, after all just about everyone has been hearing shouts of 'armaggedon' before and after the year 2000.
This is interesting.
Skeptic.com (http://www.skeptic.com/)
Skeptical Information links (http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/skeptical.html)
Why People Believe Weird Things (http://skepdic.com/refuge/weird.html)
Banshee
11-13-01, 12:28 PM
Mr. G. get of my back, NOW.
I have had it with you.:(
Shrike I will contact you, as soon as I can.
I have no videocamera and even if I had one, I am no freak from a freakshow.
Forget it.
Everybody may think about me whatever they want, I did it only because I was told to do so.
End of discussion about the message.:confused:
Tristan
11-13-01, 03:52 PM
"We are in the age of Technological Adolesence, and if we surivive.... we will become a space ferring civilization."
"Surivival according to the drake equation.....1%"
".... And it is hardly out of the question that we might destroy ourselves tomarrow."
"Right now there is enough nuclear weapons to kill 100 Billion people" ___----___From 1985... Think its changed much?
All come from my bible. Cosmos By Carl Sagan. Banshee I completely agree with you and support you. I often dream about Being offered by an alien a super powerful space craft that i could go anywhere in the universes (Ya thats right, Universes) to learn about and slowly take in the most beautiful piece of art the mother Cosmos has ever made.
Oh! Hehehehe.....Last night it was extrodinarly clear and I Did some astrophotography. The Pleiades were visible with the naked eye in Cleveland. I took pictures of the Pleiades,Saturn, Juptier, Orion, And..........thats it. I know for sure thay they were Saturn and Jupiter. Those Binoculars i bought kick ass and the Pleiades looked so awsome through them. I also found M42+M43. They are I believe both Diffuse Nebula which appears as the middle star in Orion's Sword. It looks really cool. Man I had a great night.
Banshee, Again, I support you! Late
Banshee,
<<...Mr. G. get of my back, NOW. I have had it with you...>>
My abject apologies for giving you the unintentioned impression that I was singling you out for derision.
It was not my intent to make you think I was attacking you personally. However, it has been my intent to confront your ideas and your reasoning, and the similar ideas and reasoning of others who believe as you do, as you and all others are free to confront me for my own.
And I know you meant me no personal insult when you accused me of wanting to see mothers and babies bleed.
Perhaps the following partial quote will provide some perspective on my underlying motives. It comes from the very gifted, American theoretical physicist, the late Richard P. Feynmen (1918-1988):
"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don't know anything about..."
So, just as everybody tells me when I'm feeling full of myself - some more gruffly than others-- I guess I do the same thing.
Hey, too many newsgroups.
:p
/nicefilteroff
Tristan,
Does that satisfy your demand that I modify my behavior?
Banshee,
Oh, at least we can agree upon a mutual love for cats.
Tristan,
I feel myself slipping. You better check out Chagur's sig.
Banshee
11-13-01, 11:29 PM
Mr. G. Apologies accepted and your quote is right, but I am some different.
I am born that way, I can't change that nor should I want to change that for it is a nice Gift now I can control all well.
When I was younger it was a pain most of the times, but now it is good to be me.
Being me as I am, with my strange abilities which you don't understand, like a lot of other humans, but that doesn't matter as long as you respect that humans are very different sometimes.
By the way, everybody has to respect other humans feelings and being here.
And yes, I like it about you that you have so many cats, wish I could have so many. But I have not enough room for them, so it stays by the four I have. And I love them deeply, each of them has his/her own personality, I really love them, all of them, everywhere...;)
Banshee
11-13-01, 11:46 PM
Ok Tristan, Universes, exactly.
The Spheres we call them, with its Beings and all.
And you use the right word, for flying saucers don't exist.
The right word is Spacecraft and oh, wish I could tell you a lot more.
Aren't you the friend of Shrike?
He knows something about the Crafts too.
Well, you can contact me at the ICQ number I gave you if you want.
I am glad to hear another young person is heading in the right direction. Very glad.
Keep on this way.;)
Try this link:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/comet_bronzeage_011113-1.html
Pollux V
11-14-01, 09:10 AM
I hardly know tristan but I've been to this post before and...posted on it. Anyhoo I hardly know anything about the spheremen, whatever you wanna call them, banshee told me a lil bih about them but she's definitely the source to go to. I'm not quite sure if I can post anything she's told me here so I won't without her permission.
MuliBoy
11-14-01, 12:50 PM
Every( )thing is true. No( )thing is false.
Filtering noise may always discard vital information. Every idea is the result of a process. There is no single process that contains all data, which in effect means there is no empirical evidence to be found anywhere.
But a singular idea is also a part of the whole. True or false it becomes real by being formulated and therefore excists.
Banshee
11-14-01, 01:36 PM
MuliBoy, I have got this information in a complete different way then you are refering to.
I guess you do not understand, but I won't go into this no more.
The messages come to me, I never ask for them.
No fun all the time, but that is the way I am born.
Never asked for being like this, just the way I am born and I had to learn to deal with it, which was very hard.
Believe me, I have had long, rough times handling this properly.
And nowadays 'things' do happen suddenly too, but not often.
I learned to control it, but never ever can I say when something goes wrong, with a certain ability which works at once, where ever I am.
That is no fun at all, for it can happen in the middle of a store or so.
You think that is funny? Then please, think again. I know you can do that. Perhaps a little understanding is nice. Because most humans are afraid or get ticked off, for it is just unknown to them, so they think of it as scary or crazy.
I am not crazy, not scary, just who I am. Respect me please and other humans who have the same 'problem?' like I have.
There are a lot more then you may think.
But you are right in saying that everyone has the right to think his/her thinking is the good way.
That is not what I try to say, I just passed information through to other humans because I was asked to do so.
Never ever do I post 'things' like this.
This time it was necessarry and I am not the only one who is spreading the message.
Wish there was someone at Sciforums who has had the same message. I hardly can believe there is no one here but me.
So, if somebody knows about the message, speak up, don't hide, for it is the time to speak up now....
Thank you.
SeekerOfTruth
11-14-01, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by Stryderunknown
I have been theorising some more and I know someone on here has began touching upon what I feel is the truth.
It's taken me a while to get to the point of writing this as I have been theorising over this and trying to expand the information further (But I lack the all important diagrams that take ages to create. Although you wouldn't suspect that when you see them)
......
Very interesting theory Stryderunknown. I don't know if you have seen any previews of the movie "The One" starring Jet Li. The movie was recently released here in the US. The movie has some outstanding special effects, but the storyline suffers somewhat... but I digress.
What I found very intersting is that a theory on a "multiverse" is put forth in the movie and it almost exactly follows your description.
Who knows, you may be on the right track...
MuliBoy
11-14-01, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Banshee
MuliBoy, I have got this information in a complete different way then you are refering to.
My post was not aimed at you Banshee.
I know you speak truth. I wrote it for the ones that seem to have a hard time envisioning the scope of what we "spaceheads" speak of :)
Everyone is receiving the message. It is just being filtered out as noise by the ppl whoīve been taught to do so. Conditioning is the word.
Weīre in it together :)
Tristan
11-14-01, 05:37 PM
Huh?:confused: :confused:
Banshee, et al.,
<<...I have got this information in a complete different way then you...>>
That sounds an awful lot like "Someone told me this, and you should believe it, but I'm not going to tell you who told me so that you can check the validity of the source for yourself. And so you don't think that I don't trust you to know who told me, I'm going to also tell you that I don't want to tell you because I don't want to be laughed at, thereby hoping you will forget to be skeptical so as not to hurt my feelings.
Well, if you don't want my feelings to be hurt, Banshee, you will tell me who told you so that I am not feeling insulted that you don't trust me to know and that you also might be secretly laughing at me (us) for not figuring out the true purpose of your public reasoning, or just for not knowing any better to ask.
So, who/what told you? ;)
Banshee
11-14-01, 08:02 PM
Thank you MuliBoy, I was wondering why you posted it allready.
Guess I did a pretty good job in misunderstanding you. I apologize for that.;)
I cannot tell you how it came to me in this thread. I am allready haunted by Mr. G. and the whole 'thing' ticks me off. I will send a PM to let you know.
Tristan, what are you referring to?
Of course, Banshee, my question is not an attack on your person. I am skeptically questioning the validity of your ideas and reasoning.
So, I trust you will respond with reasonable ideas and not as if your person is under attack.
xvenomousx
11-14-01, 09:58 PM
Well i've always thought that we are inside a kind of black hole.
If you get so close to a black hole that you pass inside the "Event horizon" you'd need to travel faster than the speed of light to escape.
Well the universe is expanding at the speed of light so if you could travel faster than the speed of light in our universe for long enough you'd fly out of it. But its impossible (currently) so in effect we could be inside a black hole.
This leads to suggest that blackholes are baby universes, seeded by matter from the parent universe. They'd probably inherit the laws of physics from the parent universe, like we do with genes, but possibly slightly altered laws. Perhaps even a process of evolution occurs with universes? Maybe many millions of universes in the past the laws of physics were simpler, and only now are they complex enough for life to form and to percieve this possiblity?
It turns out I'm not the first to think of this, theres been alot of theorising about this.
Banshee
11-14-01, 10:24 PM
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0111/nsauroras_polar.gif
Banshee,
A nice picture, for sure.
Are you meaning to imply that it's the Earth that talks to you, or those pesky Australians?
Banshee,
Why am I suspecting that really you're playing to the sympathies of this community's gullible members?
Bebelina
11-15-01, 02:20 PM
Yes, Banshee, we are all getting the message, as MuliBoy said too. People are just handling the information different according to how their personalities have evolved.
So you are NOT alone. :) Weīre here and we know and feel what is happening. So donīt be afraid that people will think you are crazy, youīre not. Itīs they who are afraid who call you crazy.
And for the record, I have been called crazy so many times that Iīm beginning to think itīs my middle name ! :D
So keep reminding people of what is good and what is love, and hope. :)
Tristan
11-15-01, 05:29 PM
Mr.G,
Shut Up!
Oh, my. It's been a very long time since last I was collectively sat upon and then tickled to near-death.
Banshee,
In textual form, please identify to me your information source(s) so that I may validate it/them for myself. Not telling me makes your source(s) effectively invisible and, thus, indistinguishable from being non-existant. Humor this poor, empirically-minded, spiritual peasant if you can.
Bebelina,
A search of this thread reveals the word crazy appears for the first time in your very own post. You may speak for your friends but not for people of opposing opinion, such as myself.
Tristan,
<<...Mr.G, Shut Up!..>>
I think you shall find the more effective technique to be covering your ears with your hands and then humming loudly. :D
================================
Permit me to digress:
"Banshee,
<<...Mr. G. get of my back, NOW. I have had it with you...>>
My abject apologies for giving you the unintentioned impression that I was singling you out for derision.
It was not my intent to make you think I was attacking you personally. However, it has been my intent to confront your ideas and your reasoning, and the similar ideas and reasoning of others who believe as you do, as you and all others are free to confront me for my own."
"Mr. G. Apologies accepted....everybody has to respect other humans feelings and being here."
=================================
Well, I am here.
Certainly, I do not share many of your collective beliefs and I have very many opinions that are dramtically different than your own. I am not afraid to speak my mind and I accept that my public image will frequently be said not to meet popular standards of herding behavior. I am who I am and I don't require the permission of others to decide what I must be beyond that to which I am willing to acquiesce. I do not take unpopular positions just to be popular. I don't couch my terms in ambiguous niceties. I wear my arrogance on my shirt sleeve for all to see instead of hiding it behind a gratuitous veneer of chameleonic subterfuge.
By your collective's own words, I am here and I am deserving of respect. Or are your words as hollow as your claims to uncommon, special insights and powers?
So, go ahead. Tickle me.
Make my day.
Pollux V
11-15-01, 08:12 PM
everyone-find a movie called 'the great dictator,' with Charlie Chaplin in it. Watch it. The whole thing, beginning to end. It is a wonderful movie. It will restore your faith in humanity. It speaks for us all, and shows that even in the worst of times a voice of reassurance and of hope can arise from the ashes of fear and despair and help us all from ourselves. If this whole ordeal really is true (I'm sorry, none of you have any proof to back up your claims, I listen to you all but don't necessarily believe you) then you must convince your friends not to do this. If they [the blue men, whatever] are real I want to speak with them immediately, even though the prospect sounds terrifying to me if I find that I've saved the lives of billions of people I think what I've done is worth it. The greedy acts of some of our terrible leaders do not represent us all, in(fact bush doesn't represent the majority of the US and never will.
Humans have created a web of misconception through media that changes the average person's view on the world, but it is not our fault. The rich and the powerful, the elites, are to blame (not all of them-like Daschle). Violence is not the answer. Mass genocide unlike the world has ever, ever seen is not the answer. I'm beginning to think the aliens are afraid of us, afraid of what we could become, how do you know, banshee, bebelina, muliboy, that they were involved with early man and have a direct link with 'mother earth?' If they were truly righteous and dedicated to their cause then they would see that no violence whatsoever is the answer to any of this, it can be fixed nonviolently and if they are really the 'good guys' then they would try to help us first. They are no better than us. What will happen?
Whoever they are, if they wipe us out, they are evil.
I don't know if I believe this, however the prospect of multiple sciforums members getting the same message makes me want to say this. Whoever can speak with them must stop them, somehow. They have no right to do this, no utopia will be established after such a catastrophe, terror, famine, petty wars, feudalism, fascism, it will all occur when leadership is destroyed and mass chaos ensues. What do they wish to accomplish by ahnilated billions of innocent lives? Less than one percent, I bet, of humans are really truly evil, less than one percent are really driven by greed and the demoralizing and suffering of others. Those are the ones to go after. Not everyone.
Look at my quote. You will understand. This is blind destruction.
Blind destruction.
Banshee
11-15-01, 09:02 PM
Charlie Chaplin, very nice yes.
But wasn't that 60, 70 years ago?
I have to think then that it was not so bad with Earth as it is now. The last 50 years, the most cruel inventions are made towards the human race by the human race. And it goes on and on. Worse every day.
You should think a little Shrike, my friend, it is a little different in this world nowadays.
In WW2 the first nuclear bomb was used. Nowadays the nukes are much more dangerous and you know what happened in WW2 after they dropped the nuke.
That was pretty bad don't you think? What will hapen if they start nuking eachother in these days you think, with so much more power in the d**n nukes.:confused:
I understand perfectly well what you are saying but I do not agree with you in this.
Mr. G. I shall respect you.
True respect, and therefore trust, would be revealing your source(s). I will apply skeptical standards of evaluation.
The more you resist the more I doubt. Others reading will be lost to you, too.
Life is about risk. Take the risk and feel alive.
Bebelina
11-15-01, 10:23 PM
That is why they have contacted us in the first place. But they are helping to selfhelp so to speak. Unless we, the humanity, realizes for ourselves what we are doing, the knowledge is useless.
The help comes from within the heart and what messages we recive through the loving consciousness.
There are many kinds of aliens gathering around the Earth at these times, all with different purposes, but one in common, they wouldnīt want to miss this for the world! :D
This change in the physical reality dimension when itīs merging with a higher level is upon us soon, and is a major event thoughout the universe. Many will be affected by this, and therefore they are curiously awaiting, or trying to help, so that the transistion will be as "smooth" as possible.
We will become very aware of other form of existance , in our renewed physical reality. So if we slowly become aware of them before the transition, it will go easier.
Being is living as though absence thereof is a mythical condition of presumptive existential unfairness -- as though contemplative sensitivity is a predetermined certainty of actualnessly being real.
Pollux V
11-16-01, 07:34 AM
I guarantee that if you kill 2/3 of all humans the truly evil ones that the aliens are going after will not be killed. The human race's image has been corrupted by only a few, if you go anywhere in the world, NYC, Ellsworth (ME), Hong Kong, Moscow, Brasilla, Johanasburg, Kabul-you will find good people everywhere. The leaders are at fault, and the ones that actually lead them. If 2/3 of all humans are going to die no utopia would be created, terror of the same thing occuring again would be widespread and no one would be happy. Killing us off is not the answer. They are no more advanced intellectually then we are, if not worse. If this whole thing really is true than there is likely a much more sinister plot behind all of this.
I know I sound strung up but if the weight of 2 or 3 billion people is on my shoulders I think I'd like to get my point across. Anyone who can speak with them now tell them to come to me immediately, I guarantee I'll straighten them out. They have no right...
Pollux V
11-16-01, 07:40 AM
by the way, bansh, I'm not thinking like a human.
I'm thinking RATIONALLY.
Tristan
11-16-01, 07:41 AM
Mr. G,
I can respect you too. I have no problem with you speaking your mind. Its when you do childish things and insult people that i can't respect you. Your obviously a cultured adult with your vary impressive vocabulary. So just don't insult people and when I said One word response i ment "YES" or "NO". Don't try to turn it into a mind game or a paragraph with no spaces. Come on, act your age.
Tristan,
<<...and when I said One word response i ment "YES" or "NO"...>>
And by what reasoning do you imagine I must obey your commands like a circus animal?
<<...Don't try to turn it into a mind game...>>
Attempting to predetermine my own response by artifical limitation, for your own hidden purposes, is not the same thing?
Banshee
11-16-01, 01:15 PM
Bebelina, thank you so much.
I have nothing to add to this. She said it so right.
For the moment I will keep quite. Thank you my good girlfriend, as always. We will know soon enough, everybody gets the signals now.
They come from all over the Planet and I hear them. There are so many more who notice the signs one way or another, there is no doubt about it. There is something coming up pretty soon...
Shrike, rational thinking is human thinking, listen to your Inner feelings and don't think so much. Because of all those thinking you are getting lost and you loose the track you were walking on.
Watch yourself please, you were doing so fine...:(
Pollux V
11-16-01, 05:44 PM
please just ask them to speak with me. Anyone ask them.
How can you believe that the deaths of 2.7 (rounded) billion people is just? I am listening to my feelings, these people are innocent, they have done nothing wrong, most of them are probably in Chinese prisons or dying of AIDS in Africa, the truly evil people are so few, the human race has made so many mistakes but they were accidents due to our foolishness, they were not done purposely to hurt mother earth and piss of genocidal aliens, if we know Earth had a soul then we would stop immediately. But we would have to be sure.
What is coming soon? Tell me please!!!
Bebelina
11-16-01, 08:34 PM
Please read my last post again! :D
Mr G, since your arrogant attitude I had decided not to speak to you any more, "ingnore it and it will go away" -type of thing.
But now I realize that you only suffer from the consquenses of a crippled belief-system, so an upgrade would be beneficial for your ability to communicate with other humans in a more rewarding way. :)
Banshee
11-16-01, 08:46 PM
Hahaha, good one Bebelina.
Sorry Mr. G. this was to tempting, haha.:p :p
Sorry, but I've played long enough to have already earned more than enough anti-ad hominem points to protect me from last resort titillations.
:p
Pollux V
11-17-01, 09:21 AM
so beb you're saying that instead of almost everyone being slaughtered our dimension is going to emerge with another (hell)? Does this mean we'll all become psychics? What are the ramifications of a dimensional merge? At least in your opinion.
Banshee
11-17-01, 11:09 AM
Do we all become Psychics???
You wish....:p
It doen't work that way Shrike, again...
But a nice remark.
To explore your ESP abilities you have to change your whole attitude, not live so much by your thoughts.
Try to live by listening to your Inner feelings and handle by your feelings.
It is just because of that human thinking that humans have lost their bounds with Earth and Nature.
Don't forget we were the last creatures who crawled out of the Seas.
Humans have got the possibility to communicate...but even that they cannot do any more so well.:mad:
All most humans do nowadays is arguing and distrust eachother, they lost the ability of good communication towards one another...
All we have to do is make sure we keep talking...:)
And listen very well to yourself, your own Inner feelings and handle from there to your fellow humans. It will make a whole difference, certainly as humans should realize this.
But I am afraid it is too late and most humans don't want to have communication with other humans any more because they are too badly hurt by them, that is so sad about this human race.
They prefer to THINK only of themselves and their material luxury.
And can't care less about other humans feelings.:confused:
Bebelina
11-17-01, 11:40 AM
I believe we all can become psychics, but that itīs a matter of choice. To become a psychic you must willingly trust the universe to guide you right, and not depend on the material world anymore. Those who cannot take that step into trusting your inner senses, listening to your heart, will only experience the merging to a higher level as very apocalyptic and painful. Then their survival instincts will guide them right, or they will die, to be reborn in the new world. :)
So if the change is to be painful or joyous is totally up to you.
This change has to take place now, because a cycle is coming to an end, and another is starting, so itīs nature, it canīt be stopped. Itīs the end of the end and the beginning of the beginning. The evolutional spiral is going up a notch. :)
Banshee
11-17-01, 02:09 PM
YES, EXACTLY...;) :p
Pollux V
11-17-01, 03:24 PM
what is changing? Please tell me.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood but the deaths of 2.7 billion people sounded bad to me. I guess I'm going nuts.
Tristan
11-17-01, 06:59 PM
Example: I am stranded miles away from help in the rocky mountains. I have a compass. I do not choose to use it, because I need to trust the universe to help guide me and not rely on material things? Is that what you mean?
Banshee
11-17-01, 07:41 PM
Yes Tristan, that is a good example of it.
But to lead you guide only by trusting on the Universe is not enough.
You have to know where you go. So you look up at the stars and the Moon (if She is there) and let you guide by Them, for They are part of the Universe, so They are part of you and you can trust your feelings then and lead you guide your way out by only the Moon and the Stars.;)
Shrike, when are you going to stop nagging about 2/3 of the worlds population that is going to be wiped away?
There are no individuals picked out here, there will be a great Natural disaster and where and how, well, we shall see when it comes....
Don't worry so much, it is no big deal, part of the Cosmos, every once in a while as Earth is tired and angry with the little pests on Her back, she throws them off.
Just part of the Cosmos. Those who will remain shall find out when they remain. If not, you are just going back to the Cosmos.
Is that so hard to deal wth for you?
Why?
It is all part of Nature and the Cosmos, really, I can't care less if I shall be wiped away...:p
Pollux V
11-17-01, 07:54 PM
this is too much. I'm sorry, I liked bebelina's explanation better.
Isn't it rather interesting that all this psychobabble stuff is considered by some to be a status symbol?
Curious. If you don't subscribe to it, you're obviously "too educated to understand".
So, you have to stop thinking to be one of the special, chosen ones?
:rolleyes:
cygnusco24
11-18-01, 06:11 AM
kind of let us think about this for just a moment.
this is all kinda neet until we consider two things.
1) the event horizon, this is the area which in a black hole,mater is converted into energy,(remember E=M C 2 ) thus creating the massive gamma and x ray
bursters which we can observe from the H.S.T.
2) the radiation generated by a black hole, will act as a stellar auto-clave so
as to render any mater ejected "on the other side " sterile, and thus devoid
of any of the necessary building blocks of life ie: amino acids, complex carbo-
hydrates, etc.
Don't stop thinking at 14 with these things going on in your head you will get
it right one of these days
Banshee
11-18-01, 04:15 PM
cygnusco24
I do agree with you thus far as you say not to stop thinking at the age of 14.
Off course you have to think, without thinking at all, you cannot manage your way in this humans world.:)
All I was trying to explain is that you have to listen better to your Inner feelings and look for a good balance between acting from without your Inner feelings and your thinking.
This E=Mc2 is just a theory to help humans to calculate things out, again an invention by the human race. It worked so well because the humans nowadays live more from without their thinking alone and lost the contact with their Inner feelings.
But that doesn't matter, everybody has the right to live his/her own way in this lifetime.;)
But I have to say there are more and more (young) humans who act from without their Inner feelings and can handle from out there.
But that doesn't mean you cannot think, it is the way to combine the two. That is what I try to explain.
A good reply, thank you.:)
Shrike, have fun with Bebelina, I shall tell her to look for your PM's...:p
Bebelina
11-18-01, 05:18 PM
Is always within you. Since we live in a physical world for the reason to learn within the physical realm we must also trust to learn that the materia we interact with are all part of the same universe as we are.
The buildingblocks that make up the compass are the same as yours and everything else. The universal consciousness resides in all that is, including humans and compasses. The manifestation of a compass provided to you stranded on a rocky mountain is the universe helping you. You should use it if you donīt trust your inner capability to guide you right. If you do however, then what is the use of the compass? Then it just becomes another piece of materia to carry around for no reason.
So itīs a matter of realizing what the physical world is, provides and why. And when you have done that you are able to transcend it.
Mr G...:rolleyes:, "too educated to understand" ?????? :D :D :D
Banshee
11-18-01, 06:07 PM
Well, I guess just because Mr. G. is too well educated as he THINKS he is, he doesn't have any feelings left to feel and therefor certainly no Inner compass to relie on.
Too well educated, oh man, I can't stop laughing any more about his skeptic educated posts. All from the Internet or some maybe copied from a book or so.:p :p
Don't even read them...Too well educated. haha.
Go on Mr. G. have fun typing it all down, it won't be read by me any more, it is too well educated.;)
I am sorry for this reply, totally off-topic, but it really was too tempting.....
Pollux V
11-18-01, 07:09 PM
It just seems to me now that this whole thing about everybody dying just makes no sense. Why is Earth waiting, why didn't he/she do it before things got out of hand? It seems impossible. Only organic things have souls. The Earth is not organic. In fact, there is nothing on Earth that is not organic that has a soul. If I pick up my watch and toss it around it doesn't get pissed off because it doesn't have a soul. If I do it with a rock the same thing. If I do it with a cat I'll wind up in a stretcher.
Personally, if Earth is pissed off for whatever the reason he/she should just leave us the hell alone so we can go colonize other planets and fugghedabout her. I'm starting to take the stance of a skeptic here, nothing currently discussed on this thread is rational or logical. I may be only an initiate when it comes to this psychic thing (when we just went out to dinner I sensed our waitress was a closet-lesbian IMMEDIATELY), but this makes no sense.
And I STILL don't get how you [banshee] think a paradise can form from sheer terror and destruction. After what you've been describing it seems like things could only get worse.
Bebelina
11-18-01, 08:24 PM
She was a "closet-lesbian" ?!?! :D
Itīs not that the Earth is waiting, itīs going to happen when the time is right.
Shrike, everyhting has a soul and the Earth is very much a living organism, that I think even the pure scientific materialists can agree with.
Rambler
11-19-01, 12:04 AM
you wrote:
"Shrike, everyhting has a soul and the Earth is very much a living organism, that I think even the pure scientific materialists can agree with. "
I beg to differ, there is a distinct creteria that must be met for science to consider something as a life form...the earth doesn't fit that criteria, the earth does not eat, it does not grow, it does not burn fuel it does not breathe to burn that fuel etc etc....not alive I'm sorry to tell you. It's like saying a rock is alive because there's a slug crawling across it.
Further, on what do you base that everything has a soul, what is a soul????
Pollux V
11-19-01, 08:47 AM
I just got this feeling that she was a closet lesbian IMMEDIATELY.
It wouldn't go away.
MuliBoy
11-19-01, 09:32 AM
Reality and all that it contains is made from the same energy. This energy is alive and therefore everything is alive. The physical person is a holographic representation of the self, just as the self excists on every level of dimensional time/space in various forms suited for the representative conditions of that sphere. The self is the combination of all these representations. No end, no beginning, just a complex self generating ladder dancing its self-embracing reproductive fractal dance.
Death and horrors are not agressive. The earth is not a angry planet, it is completely loving. It is a cradle. Death and horrors are actions made by humans who lack growth and security. Becoming "evil" is trying to become safe by wearing the trappings one fears.
All that is messed up is just symptoms of amnesia. Ppl are so damn lost and cannot see any meaning above the tangible and therefore indulge in material hunts and a downward spiral of good old fashioned hedonism.
Shut off consumers.
Becoming more is a simple case of watching and learning. What makes things ok? What makes ppl happy? The loving moments when everything glows. Perfection and harmony lie in moments. Life is made up of moments, not time, and every moment is complete. When one sees that, life becomes natural.
Love is the law.
Why do you excist? Because you want to. Itīs that simple.
The etheral love the material and vice versa.
As long as the playground aspect of excisting is ignored the prime excistential meaning is unfathomable.
Bebelina
11-19-01, 12:50 PM
It is what it is, regardless of what we call it.
Can an organism breathe or eat without a mouth ?
The Earth feeds on sunlight for example. And the surface of the organism transforms the sunlight to energy to be able to grow. And now and then Earth disposes itself from used up materia by letting it just vapor away or send it off in spaceshuttles. :D
I just assumed that even materialists took this into consideration, but perhaps they donīt...
What is a soul? Now, thereīs a question that saddens me. :(
Try meditating for a while and you will find out for yourself. Material proof will not be obtained however, because of the impossibility of proving something non-physical in the physical world. But maybe your own experience will count for something?
The soul is the non-physical consciousness and energy that we all have emerged from, the soul of the universe divided into all materia that make up the whole physical reality. The stone is very much alive, crawling slug or not.
:)
Banshee
11-19-01, 04:04 PM
The matter is that humans nowadays THINK to much.
All scientific theories and so on. This can't be because.....babbling from scientists. Because they can't find an explanation they say something can't exist.
But it is all only theories they have, made up by their own technological instruments. The scientists have decided how long a Light year is, how long a day lasts, when Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter begin and so on...
The fools first made up time and later on they start to change it into Summer and Wintertime, because of one hour more daylight.
Reread that sentence and see how stupid humans act, they mess with their own so called time settlement.:p :p
Shrike, a watch is made by humans from non organic material so it is logical that a watch doesn't have an own will. But if you are at certain places on Earth, you will find Magnetic Fields and then your watch doesn't work any more.;)
What is a Soul??????
Man, I am stunned to hear that...
Very sad, I am real sorry to hear that some humans forgot about their Deeper Selves and are totally wrapped up in these scientific garbage.:(
Try to think a little less and listen more careful to your own Inner feelings. Act from out there. It makes a whole difference.
In your own life and it certainly will change your behaviour towards yourself, other humans and Earth.
Earth has a Deeper Self, for She is alive, not a dead 'thing' on which we live by accident. We are all here with a reason, but a lot of humans lost the contact with their Deeper Selves just because of all these scientific crap....
And colonizing another Planet????
Man, don't make me laugh...so the human race as it is now, can destroy and pollute that One also?????
Guess not, is not going to happen, but the idea is nice.;)
Tristan
11-19-01, 06:10 PM
cyg, I understand what you mean by the black hole sterilizing everything but you must not understand. I mean everythin is broken down to Protons, neutrons, and electrons (or even smaller). Then on the other side everything starts over. First Hydogen forms out of these particles and then all the elements can be made from hydrogen. then complex molecules, then planets, and stars, then complex organic molecules, ect..
Anyway, I don't need a compass.... I know the Stars. I would use the stars as my guide. Is that considered 'using the cosmos' or 'trusting your inner feelings'?
Rambler
11-19-01, 07:25 PM
(Sorry all I don't mean to go off on a tangent so other feel free to ignore my post, I am only replying to Bebalina's last post)
Like I said before just because there is a living thing crawling across a rock you do not say the rock is alive. The earth does NOT use sunlight to feed, the earth could be blasted from it's solar orbit and still be esentially the same. The life on it would die, the land would certainly look different but the earth would not be AWARE that it had changed, because its a ROCK!!!!!
So in away one thing you said was correct it does depend on how you interpert things but life living on earth does not make the earth a living entity.
As far as soul goes I just wanted to see what your definition is. I tend to see it as a collective of conscience and the human brain needing to feel like it's part of a bigger picture, that our finite lives are more then the chemistry that give us a sense of self. In my opinion soul is like religion...just a human inabilty to comprehend the human purpose.
Reminder to self: Logical defense of illogical conclusions and rationalized defense of irrational beliefs are both exemplary, argumentative oxymorons.
Banshee
11-20-01, 02:09 PM
Tristan, good reply.;)
Rambler, you can reply only to Bebelina but your reply is going to be read by everyone who is posting here.
I disagree totally with you.
Maybe you should try to think a lttle less (scientific) and learn to trust a little more on your Inner feelings.
What a peculiar definitian of the word 'soul' you give there.:(
And Earth is not only a rock....that is only the surface on which we humans live.
Earth is pretty much alive and if She is going to be hit by a Meteor or so and you live to see it, well, listen very carefully then.
You can hear Her laugh in the distance...go, go destructive, hateful human race.:p
Sorry if it sounds a little nasty, but I really couldn't resist after reading your reply.
It really is not meant as an insult to you, it is just a reaction at your reply.
Not an attack at your feelings, for I don't intend to hurt your feelings.:)
Hope you don't dislike me toomuch now. If so, well, I am really sorry, for it certainly is not meant as an insult!
MuliBoy
11-20-01, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Mr. G
Reminder to self: Logical defense of illogical conclusions and rationalized defense of irrational beliefs are both exemplary, argumentative oxymorons.
Reminder to self: Illogical defense of illogical conclusions and irrational defense of irrational beliefs are both examples of perceptive entrapment and playing after preset reality-tunnel beliefs. A NPC. A randomly created automaton...:)
Rambler
11-20-01, 06:28 PM
First thanks for pointing out the obvious...i.e. I know people will read it, I figured if people don't want to get into the side track (since there is a subject at hand which has nothing to do with what I'm posting) they can read the first line and move on....
As far as soul goes I'm yet to see evidence that we even have one. At this point I see it as a way of the human mind trying to beat mortality (if we look at the soul from a religious perspective), I guess it depends on what one means when they say soul, certainly it can be an emotive conglomerant etc i.e. when you play music with soul or a particularly emotive piece of literature could be descirbed as being written with soul etc but all that fairy magick hippy non-sense is not based in anything more then imagination...so sorry if that sounds harsh but I don't need to be told that I'm wrong because I don't share your interpretation of the human state. Obviously the earth is more then a rock it contains all tyes of materials but it doesn't live you'll need to accept that the concept of it being alive is something you've attributed to it and if you can hear voices coming form the planet then I suggest you seek medical advice.
My views may seem dry and inhuman to you and i don't intend malice but please don't tell me I'm wrong simply because I choose to base my interpretations in reality and don't share your vivid imagination.
<<...Earth is pretty much alive...>>
Following from that logic is the equally silly supposition that the majority of people living on Earth pretty much think like a rock.
Tristan
11-20-01, 07:26 PM
Think: If you were an alien and you were to take a glance at one of those bugs that literally look like a branch would you first think it was alive? Or would you conclude that it was a branch?
The earth is a funny thing. We only live on the surface. Do you know for sure there is nothing below the surface. We have drilled only a fraction of the way into the Crust! we have never even got close to the mantle. Everything we know about the internal earth is a good guess based on the little evidence we have! Gaia could be real. Why not? Someone said earlier that animals dont have souls. Why do we? Why in the world are we so privelaged.
Um, perhaps read (http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/earth-3D-seismic.html)ing would be of assistance.
By popular demand, and also out of a new-found respect for the needs of the requesting uninitiates, the link by no means is an extensive treatise on the subject.
:)
MuliBoy,
I am flattered that you find your creative talents require my assistance. ;)
Originally posted by Banshee
The matter is that humans nowadays THINK to much.
All scientific theories and so on. This can't be because.....babbling from scientists. Because they can't find an explanation they say something can't exist.
But it is all only theories they have, made up by their own technological instruments. The scientists have decided how long a Light year is, how long a day lasts, when Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter begin and so on...
The fools first made up time and later on they start to change it into Summer and Wintertime, because of one hour more daylight.
Banshee
From the above, and what I have read so far you seem to be very anti-science.
I take it you wrote the above on a computer? I assume you communicate with your family using a phone and watch news reports on a television. You probably own a CD player, radio and possibly even a MP3 player. No doubt all of these, and your fridge, heating and washing machines are all powered by electricity. If you have travelled abroad you may have flown on a plane. All around you, all day are many, many technological tools and gadgets we take for granted.
Each and every one was designed using the scientific principles you appear to despise so much. Computers especially work using silicon chips. Chips designed and built using the well established principles of Quantum Mechanics. Satellites in orbit, carrying mobile phone and internet traffic, are kept there the well established rules of Gravity. The now common GPS systems use relativistic corrections to be as accurate as possible.
Our modern western world and all the comforts it gives us are all based on the acheivements of science. If you think science is some how a bad thing I would invite you to get rid of all your scientifically provided utilities and live on a commune using natural farming methods for a year or more. Then come back and tell us how much easier life is without science.
Humans think, its how we are made. The moment a member of Homo Habilis picked up a flint and sharpened it to easier cut an animal, science was invented. It is in our nature to improve the way we do things and make our own lives easier. This is what drives science and why we are here today and not roaming the planes of Africa still as hunter-gatherers.
One of the big debates, I believe, in anthropology is why and how Homo Sapiens developed and overtook Homo Habilis and Homo Neanderthalis. The Neanderthals where well adapted to the environment but had not 'improved' their tool making/hunting skills in a long time. Along came Sapiens and in a very short time overtook Neandertals and simply out evolved them. Basically because we out-thought them. We are better at inventing new tools and adapting.
Such is our problem, we adapt the environment, we don't adapt to the environment. Intelligence is an evolutionary experiment. If we make a bad mistake and destroy ourselves by destroying our environment it becomes a failed experiment. We are not totally in control of the world around us yet.
Some theories of where the matter came from
<a href=http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/cosmol.html>http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/cosm/cosmol.html</a>
and why the Big Bang is not the same thing as a Blackhole
<a href=http://www.weburbia.com/physics/universe.html>http://www.weburbia.com/physics/universe.html</a>
To bring the discussion back to the original question :-)
Tristan
11-21-01, 11:11 AM
Let me make myself clear:
I am saying that a black fricken hole basically creates a new universe in wheich matter is packed into from the black hole absorbing the mater from the other side. The universe expands with the matter. So you dont have a little tiny chunk of matter it a vast space. The universe and the ball of matter are one and the same size b4 the big bang happend.
I am in no way suggesting that the big bang IS a black hole.
Banshee
11-21-01, 12:06 PM
Rambler, like I said before, I was not intending to hurt somebody's feelings.
It was a rather peculiar way of asking:'What is a Soul (Deeper Self)'.:)
You have your own interpretations and I have mine. Ok? I respect your theories and scientifical vision at 'things' happening on this Earth. Everybody has to make his/her own way of living on this Planet and so it is good for you to show your vision at the world. No insult to you, just another opinion.:)
thed, I only have a computer and a good stereo and of course electricity and a heater. It is not that these inventions are all bad, but that the human race uses their inventions in a very bad way 'sometimes' (in these war time, most of the times).
That is what I am trying to say here, not that all inventions bring harm to the human race, only the ones they use against eachother. And the ones they use to kill living and intelligent Animals, like the Whales, the Elephants and so on.
I sounded to pessimistic I guess. I shall pay more attention to it. But it sure is not meant to the early inventions, like electricity and heaters and with this computer I can reach humans all over the world. You understand what I mean? I really do hope so.:)
Boris 2, thank you so much for the link about that Black and White Hole theories seen from out of the Cosmic point of view.
They don't say that it is true, but they assume it happens like that.
And that is exactly the way it has to be, for there is no real proof to be given about the Universe(s) and all other that is happening in the Cosmos. :)
Good link, I didn't know about this one, it's added to favorites. Thank you so much for this link. I guess it is a good link for every one who wants to read a little Cosmic theories about our Cosmos. I really hope humans will look at this link, for it is written down in an understandable way, though it looks real 'scientific'.;)
Tristan, I am with you, as always. You have good feelings and a good view about Earth and how to live in it.
Talk to you soon.:p ;)
This is an article I downloaded ages ago and can not remember the address of. It might help towards people understanding what theories are and are not.
.............
McComas, William, Ten myths of science: Reexamining what we think we know...., Vol. 96, School Science & Mathematics, 01-01-1996, pp 10.
TEN MYTHS OF SCIENCE: RE-EXAMINING WHAT WE THINK WE KNOW...
This article addresses and attempts to refute several of the most
widespread and enduring misconceptions held by students regarding the enterprise of science. The ten myths discussed include the common notions that theories become laws, that hypotheses are best characterized as educated guesses, and that there is a commonly-applied scientific method.
In addition, the article includes discussion of other incorrect ideas such as the view that evidence leads to sure knowledge, that science and its methods provide absolute proof, and that science is not a creative endeavor. Finally, the myths that scientists are objective, that experiments are the sole route to scientific knowledge and that scientific conclusions are continually reviewed conclude this presentation. The paper ends with a plea that instruction in and opportunities to experience the nature of science are vital in preservice and inservice teacher education
programs to help unseat the myths of science.
Myths are typically defined as traditional views, fables, legends or
stories. As such, myths can be entertaining and even educational since they help people make sense of the world. In fact, the explanatory role of myths most likely accounts for their development, spread and persistence. However, when fact and fiction blur, myths lose their entertainment value and serve only to block full understanding. Such is the case with the myths of science.
Scholar Joseph Campbell (1968) has proposed that the similarity among many folk myths worldwide is due to a subconscious link between all peoples, but no such link can explain the myths of science. Misconceptions about science are most likely due to the lack of philosophy of science content in teacher education programs, the failure of such programs to provide and
require authentic science experiences for preservice teachers and the generally shallow treatment of the nature of science in the precollege textbooks to which teachers might turn for guidance.
As Steven Jay Gould points out in The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone (1988), science textbook writers are among the most egregious purveyors of myth and inaccuracy. The fox terrier mentioned in the title refers to the classic comparison used to express the size of the dawn horse, the tiny precursor to the modem horse. This comparison is unfortunate for two reasons. Not only was this horse ancestor much bigger than a fox terrier, but the fox terrier breed of dog is virtually unknown to American students. The major criticism leveled by Gould is that once
this comparison took hold, no one bothered to check its validity or
utility. Through time, one author after another simply repeated the inept comparison and continued a tradition that has made many science texts virtual clones of each other on this and countless other points.
In an attempt to provide a more realistic view of science and point out issues on which science teachers should focus, this article presents and discusses 10 widely-held, yet incorrect ideas about the nature of science. There is no implication that all students, or most teachers for that matter, hold all of these views to be true, nor is the list meant to be the definitive catolog. Cole (1986) and Rothman (1992) have suggested
additional misconceptions worthy of consideration. However, years of science teaching and the review of countless texts has substantiated the validity of the inventory presented here.
Myth 1: Hypotheses Become Theories Which Become Laws
This myth deals with the general belief that with increased evidence there is a developmental sequence through which scientific ideas pass on their way to final acceptance. Many believe that scientific ideas pass through the hypothesis and theory stages and finally mature as laws. A former U.S.
president showed his misunderstanding of science by saying that he was not troubled by the idea of evolution because it was "just a theory." The president's misstatement is the essence of this myth; that an idea is not worthy of consideration until "lawness" has been bestowed upon it.
The problem created by the false hierarchical nature inherent in this myth is that theories and laws are very different kinds of knowledge. Of course there is a relationship between laws and theories, but one simply does not become the other--no matter how much empirical evidence is amassed. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature and theories are the explanations of those generalizations (Rhodes & Schaible, 1989; Homer & Rubba, 1979; Campbell, 1953).
For instance, Newton described the relationship of mass and distance to gravitational attraction between objects with such precision that we can use the law of gravity to plan spaceflights. During the Apollo 8 mission, astronaut Bill Anders responded to the question of who was flying the spacecraft by saying, "I think that Issac Newton is doing most of the driving fight now." (Chaikin, 1994, p. 127). His response was understood
by all to mean that the capsule was simply following the basic laws of physics described by Isaac Newton years centuries earlier.
The more thorny, and many would say more interesting, issue with respect to gravity is the explanation for why the law operates as it does. At this point, there is no well. accepted theory of gravity. Some physicists suggest that gravity waves are the correct explanation for the law of gravity, but with clear confirmation and consensus lacking, most feel that the theory of gravity still eludes science. Interestingly, Newton addressed the distinction between law and theory with respect to gravity.
Although he had discovered the law of gravity, he refrained from
speculating publically about its cause. In Principial, Newton states" . . . I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis . . ." " . . . it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained . . ." (Newton, 1720/1946, p. 547).
Myth 2: A Hypothesis is an Educated Guess
The definition of the term hypothesis has taken on an almost mantra- like life of its own in science classes. If a hypothesis is always an educated guess as students typically assert, the question remains, "an educated guess about what?" The best answer for this question must be, that without a clear view of the context in which the term is used, it is impossible to tell.
The term hypothesis has at least three definitions, and for that reason, should be abandoned, or at least used with caution. For instance, when Newton said that he framed no hypothesis as to the cause of gravity he was saying that he had no speculation about an explanation of why the law of gravity operates as it does. In this case, Newton used the term hypothesis to represent an immature theory.
As a solution to the hypothesis problem, Sonleitner (1989) suggested that tentative or trial laws be called generalizing hypotheses with provisional theories referred to as explanatory hypotheses. Another approach would be to abandon the word hypothesis altogether in favor of terms such as speculative law or speculative theory. With evidence, generalizing hypotheses may become laws and speculative theories become theories, but
under no circumstances do theories become laws. Finally, when students are asked to propose a hypothesis during a laboratory experience, the term now means a prediction. As for those hypotheses that are really forecasts, perhaps they should simply be called what they are, predictions.
Myth 3: A General and Universal Scientific Method Exists
The notion that a common series of steps is followed by all research scientists must be among the most pervasive myths of science given the appearance of such a list in the introductory chapters of many precollege science texts. This myth has been part of the folklore of school science ever since its proposal by statistician Karl Pearson (1937). The steps listed for the scientific method vary from text to text but usually include, a) define the problem, b) gather background information, c) form a hypothesis, d) make observations, e) test the hypothesis, and f) draw
conclusions. Some texts conclude their list of the steps of the scientific method by listing communication of results as the final ingredient.
One of the reasons for the widespread belief in a general scientific
method may be the way in which results are presented for publication in research journals. The standardized style makes it appear that scientists follow a standard research plan. Medawar (1990) reacted to the common style exhibited by research papers by calling the scientific paper a fraud since the final journal report rarely outlines the actual way in which the problem was investigated.
Philosophers of science who have studied scientists at work have shown that no research method is applied universally (Carey, 1994; Gibbs & Lawson, 1992; Chalmers, 1990; Gjertsen, 1989). The notion of a single scientific method is so pervasive it seems certain that many students must be disappointed when they discover that scientists do not have a framed copy of the steps of the scientific method posted high above each laboratory workbench.
Close inspection will reveal that scientists approach and solve problems with imagination, creativity, prior knowledge and perseverance. These, of course, are the same methods used by all problem-solvers. The lesson to be learned is that science is no different from other human endeavors when puzzles are investigated. Fortunately, this is one myth that may eventually be displaced since many newer texts are abandoning or augmenting the list in favor of discussions of methods of science.
Myth 4: Evidence Accumulated Carefully Will Result in Sure Knowledge
All investigators, including scientists, collect and interpret empirical
evidence through the process called induction. This is a technique by which individual pieces of evidence are collected and examined until a law is discovered or a theory is invented. Useful as this technique is, even a preponderance of evidence does not guarantee the production of valid knowledge because of what is called the problem of induction.
Induction was first formalized by Frances Bacon in the 17th century. In his book, Novum Organum (1620/ 1952), Bacon advised that facts be assimilated without bias to reach a conclusion. The method of induction he suggested is the principal way in which humans traditionally have produced generalizations that permit predictions. What then is the problem with induction?
It is both impossible to make all observations pertaining to a given situation and illogical to secure all relevant facts for all time, past, present and future. However, only by making all relevant observations throughout all time, could one say that a final valid conclusion had been made. This is the problem of induction. On a personal level, this problem is of little consequence, but in science the problem is significant. Scientists formulate laws and theories that are supposed to hold true in all places and for all time but the problem of induction makes such a guarantee impossible.
The proposal of a new law begins through induction as facts are heaped upon other relevant facts. Deduction is useful in checking the validity of a law. For example, if we postulate that all swans are white, we can evaluate the law by predicting that the next swan found will also be white. If it is, the law is supported, but not proved as will be seen in the discussion of another science myth. Locating even a single black swan will cause the law to be called into question.
The nature of induction itself is another interesting aspect associated with this myth. If we set aside the problem of induction momentarily, there is still the issue of how scientists make the final leap from the mass of evidence to the conclusion. In an idealized view of induction, the accumulated evidence will simply result in the production of a new law or theory in a procedural or mechanical fashion. In reality, there is no such
method. The issue is far more complex -- and interesting --than that. The final creative leap from evidence to scientific knowledge is the focus of another myth of science.
Myth 5: Science and its Methods Provide Absolute Proof
The general success of the scientific endeavor suggests that its products must be valid. However, a hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge. Accumulated evidence can provide support, validation and
substantiation for a law or theory, but will never prove those laws and theories to be true. This idea has been addressed by Homer and Rubba (1978) and Lopnshinsky (1993).
The problem of induction argues against proof in science, but there is another element of this myth worth exploring. In actuality, the only truly conclusive knowledge produced by science results when a notion is falsified. What this means is that no matter what scientific idea is considered, once evidence begins to accumulate, at least we know that the notion is untrue. Consider the example of the white swans discussed
earlier. One could search the world and see only white swans, and arrive at the generalization that "all swans are white. " However, the discovery of one black swan has the potential to overturn, or at least result in modifications of, this proposed law of nature. However, whether scientists routinely try to falsify their notions and how much contrary evidence it takes for a scientist's mind to change are issues worth exploring.
Myth 6: Science Is Procedural More Than Creative
We accept that no single guaranteed method of science can account for the success of science, but realize that induction, the collection and interpretation of individual facts providing the raw materials for laws and theories, is at the foundation of most scientific endeavors. This awareness brings with it a paradox. If induction itself is not a guaranteed method for arriving at conclusions, how do scientists develop useful laws and theories?
Induction makes use of individual facts that are collected, analyzed and examined. Some observers may perceive a pattern in these data and propose a law in response, but there is no logical or procedural method by which the pattern is suggested. With a theory, the issue is much the same. Only the creativity of the individual scientist permits the discovery of laws and the invention of theories. If there truly was a single scientific
method, two individuals with the same expertise could review the same facts and reach identical conclusions. There is no guarantee of this because the range and nature of creativity is a personal attribute.
Unfortunately, many common science teaching orientations and methods serve to work against the creative element in science. The majority of laboratory exercises, for instance, are verification activities. The teacher discusses what will happen in the laboratory, the manual provides step-by-step directions, and the student is expected to arrive at a particular answer. Not only is this approach the antithesis of the way in which science actually operates, but such a portrayal must seem dry, clinical and uninteresting to many students. In her book, They're Not
Dumb, They're Different (1990) Shiela Tobias argues that many capable and clever students reject science as a career because they are not given an opportunity to see it as an exciting and creative pursuit. The moral in Tobias' thesis is that science itself may be impoverished when students who feel a need for a creative outlet eliminate it as a potential career because of the way it is taught.
Myth 7: Science and its Methods Can Answer All Questions.
Philosophers of science have found it useful to refer to the work of Karl Popper (1968) and his principle of falsifiability to provide an
operational definition of science. Popper believed that only those ideas that are potentially falsifiable are scientific ideas.
For instance, the law of gravity states that more massive objects exert a stronger gravitational attraction than do objects with less mass when distance is held constant. This is a scientific law because it could be falsified if newly-discovered objects operate differently with respect to gravitational attraction. In contrast, the core idea among creationists is that species were placed on earth fully-formed by some supernatural entity. Obviously, there is no scientific method by which such a belief could be shown to be false. Since this special creation view is impossible to falsify, it is not science at all and the term creation science is an
oxymoron. Creation science is a religious belief and as such, does not require that it be falsifiable. Hundreds of years ago thoughtful
theologians and scientists carved out their spheres of influence and have since coexisted with little acrimony. Today, only those who fail to understand the distinction between science and religion confuse the rules, roles, and limitations of these two important world views.
It should now be clear that some questions simply must not be asked of scientists. During a recent creation science trial for instance, Nobel laureates were asked to sign a statement about the nature of science to provide some guidance to the court. These famous scientists responded resoundingly to support such a statement; after all they were experts in the realm of science (Klayman, Slocombe, Lehman, & Kaufman, 1986). Later, those interested in citing expert opinion in the abortion debate asked
scientists to issue a statement regarding their feelings on this issue. Wisely, few participated. Science cannot answer the moral and ethical questions engendered by the matter of abortion. Of course, scientists as individuals have personal opinions about many issues, but as a group, they must remain silent if those issues are outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Science simply cannot address moral, ethical, aesthetic, social and metaphysical questions.
Myth 8. Scientists are Particularly Objective
Scientists are no different in their level of objectivity than are other professionals. They are careful in the analysis of evidence and in the procedures applied to arrive at conclusions. With this admission, it may seem that this myth is valid, but contributions from both the philosophy of science and psychology reveal that there are at least three major reasons that make complete objectivity impossible.
Many philosophers of science support Popper's (1963) view that science can advance only through a string of what he called conjectures and refutations. In other words, scientists should propose laws and theories as conjectures and then actively work to disprove or refute those ideas. Popper suggests that the absence of contrary evidence, demonstrated through an active program of refutation, will provide the best support available. It may seem like a strange way of thinking about verification,
but the absence of disproof is considered support. There is one major problem with the idea of conjecture and refutation. Popper seems to have proposed it as a recommendation for scientists, not as a description of what scientists do. From a philosophical perspective the idea is sound, but there are no indications that scientists actively practice programs to search for disconfirming evidence.
Another aspect of the inability of scientists to be objective is found in theory-laden observation, a psychological notion (Hodson, 1986). Scientists, like all observers, hold a myriad of preconceptions and biases about the way the world operates. These notions, held in the subconscious, affect everyone's ability to make observations. It is impossible to collect and interpret facts without any bias. There have been countless
cases in the history of science in which scientists have failed to include particular observations in their final analyses of phenomena. This occurs, not because of fraud or deceit, but because of the prior knowledge possessed by the individual. Certain facts either were not seen at all or were deemed unimportant based on the scientists's prior knowledge. In
earlier discussions of induction, we postulated that two individuals
reviewing the same data would not be expected to reach the same conclusions. Not only does individual creativity play a role, but the issue of personal theory-laden observation further implicates the situation.
This lesson has clear implications for science teaching. Teachers
typically provide learning experiences for students without considering their prior knowledge. In the laboratory, for instance, students are asked to perform activities, make observations and then form conclusions. There is an expectation that the conclusions formed will be both self-evident and uniform. In other words, teachers anticipate that the data will lead all pupils to the same conclusion. This could only happen if each student had the same exact prior conceptions and made and evaluated observations using identical schemes. This does not happen in science nor does it occur in the science classroom.
Related to the issue of theory-based observations is the allegiance to the paradigm. Thomas Kuhn (1970), in his ground-breaking analysis of the history of science, shows that scientists work within a research tradition called a paradigm. This research tradition, shared by those working in a given discipline, provides clues to the questions worth investigating, dictates what evidence is admissible and prescribes the tests and
techniques that are reasonable. Although the paradigm provides direction to the research it may also stifle or limit investigation. Anything that confines the research endeavor necessarily limits objectivity. While there is no conscious desire on the part of scientists to limit discussion, it is likely that some new ideas in science are rejected because of the paradigm issue. When research reports are submitted for publication they
are reviewed by other members of the discipline. Ideas from outside the paradigm are liable to be eliminated from consideration as crackpot or poor science and thus do not appear in print.
Examples of scientific ideas that were originally rejected because they fell outside the accepted paradigm include the sun-centered solar system, warm-bloodedness in dinosaurs, the germ-theory of disease, and continental drift. When first proposed early in this century by Alfred Wegener, the idea of moving continents, for example, was vigorously rejected. Scientists were not ready to embrace a notion so contrary to the traditional teachings of their discipline. Continental drift was finally accepted in the 1960s with the proposal of a mechanism or theory to explain how continental plates move (Hallam, 1975 and Menard, 1986). This fundamental change in the earth sciences, called a revolution by Kuhn,
might have occurred decades earlier had it not been for the strength of the paradigm.
It would be unwise to conclude a discussion of scientific paradigms on a negative note. Although the examples provided do show the contrary aspects associated with paradigm-fixity, Kuhn would argue that the blinders created by allegiance to the paradigm help keep scientists on track. His review of the history of science demonstrates that paradigms are responsible for far more successes in science than delays.
Myth 9: Experiments are the Principle Route to Scientific Knowledge
Throughout their school science careers, students are encouraged to associate science with experimentation. Virtually all hands-on experiences that students have in science class is called experiments even if it would be more accurate to refer to these exercises as technical procedures, explorations or activities. True experiments involve carefully orchestrated procedures along with control and test groups usually with
the goal of establishing a cause and effect relationship. Of course, true experimentation is a useful tool in science, but is not the sole route to knowledge.
Many note-worthy scientists have used non-experimental techniques to advance knowledge. In fact, in a number of science disciplines, true experimentation is not possible because of the inability to control variables. Many fundamental discoveries in astronomy are based on extensive observations rather than experiments. Copernicus and Kepler changed our view of the solar system using observational evidence derived from lengthy and detailed observations frequently contributed by other
scientists, but neither performed experiments.
Charles Darwin punctuated his career with an investigatory regime more similar to qualitative techniques used in the social sciences than the experimental techniques commonly associated with the natural sciences. For his most revolutionary discoveries, Darwin recorded his extensive observations in notebooks annotated by speculations and thoughts about those observations. Although Darwin supported the inductive method
proposed by Bacon, he was aware that observation without speculation or prior understanding was both ineffective and impossible. The techniques advanced by Darwin have been widely used by scientists Goodall and Nossey in their primate studies. Scientific knowledge is gained in a variety of
ways including observation, analysis, speculation, library investigation and experimentation.
Myth 10: All Work in Science is Reviewed to Keep the Process Honest.
Frequently, the final step in the traditional scientific method is that
researchers communicate their results so that others may learn from and evaluate their research. When completing laboratory reports, students are frequently told to present their methods section so clearly that others could repeat the activity. The conclusion that students will likely draw from this request is that professional scientists are also constantly reviewing each other's experiments to check up on each other. Unfortunately, while such a check and balance system would be useful, the
number of findings from one scientist checked by others is vanishingly small In reality, most scientists are simply too busy and research funds too limited for this type of review.
The result of the lack of oversight has recently put science itself under suspicion. With the pressures of academic tenure, personal competition and funding, it is not surprising that instances of outright scientific fraud do occur. However, even without fraud, the enormous amount of original scientific research published, and the pressure to produce new information rather than reproduce others' work dramatically increases the chance that
errors will go unnoticed.
An interesting corollary to this myth is that scientists rarely report
valid, but negative results. While this is understandable given the space limitations in scientific journals, the failure to report what did not work is a problem. Only when those working in a particular scientific discipline have access to all of the information regarding a phenomenon -- both positive and negative -- can the discipline progress.
Conclusions
If, in fact, students and many of their teachers bold these myths to be true, we have strong support for a renewed focus on science itself rather than just its facts and principles in science teaching and science teacher education. This is one of the central messages in both of the new science education projects. Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the
National Science Education Standards (National Research Council, 1994) project both strongly suggest that school science must give students an opportunity to experience science authentically, free of the legends, misconceptions and idealizations inherent in the myths about the nature of the scientific enterprise. There must be increased opportunity for both preservice and inservice teachers to learn about and apply the real rules of the game of science accompanied by careful review of textbooks to
remove the "creeping fox terriers" that have helped provide an inaccurate view of the nature of science. Only by clearing away the mist of half-truths and revealing science in its full light, with knowledge of both its strengths and limitations, will learners become enamored of the true pageant of science and be able fairly to judge its processes and products.
Note: William McComas' address is School of Education-WPH 1001E,
University
of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0031.
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993). Benchmarks for
science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bacon, F. (1952). The new organon. In R. M. Hutchins, (Ed.), Great Books
of the Western World: Vol. 30. The Works of Francis Bacon (pp. 107-195)
Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. (Original work published in 1620).
Campbell, N. (1953). What is science? New York: Dover Publications.
Campbell, J. (1968). The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Carey, S. S. (1994). A beginners guide to scientific method Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Chaikin, A. (1994). A man on the moon: The voyages of the Apollo
astronauts. New York: Viking Press.
Chalmers, A. (1990). Science and its fabrication. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Cole, K.C. (1986, March 23). Things your teacher never told you about
science: Nine shocking revelations! The Newsday Magazine, 21-27.
Gibbs, A. and Lawson, A. E. (1992). The nature of scientific thinking as
reflected by the work of biologists and by biology textbooks. American
Biology Teacher, 54 (3), 137-152.
Gjertsen, D. (1989). Science and philosophy past and present. New York:
Penguin Books.
Gould, S. J. (1988). The case of the creeping fox terrier clone. Natural
History, 96(1), 16-24.
Hallam, A. (1975). Alfred Wegener and the hypothesis of continental drift.
Scientific American, 252(2), 88-97.
Hodson, D. (1986). The mature of scientific observation. School Science
Review, 58(242), 17-28.
Horner, J. K. & Rubba, P. A. (1979) The laws are mature theories fable.
The Science Teacher,46(2), 31.
Horner, J. K. & Rubba, P. A. (1978) The myth of absolute truth. The
Science Teacher, 45(1), 29-30.
Klayman, R. A., Slocombe, W. B., Lehman, J. S. and Kaufman, B.S. (1986).
Amicus curiae brief of 72 Nobel laureates, 17 state academies of science,
and 7 other scientific organizations, in support of appellees. Edwards v.
Aguillard, 85 U.S. 1513.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, (2nd ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lopushinsky, T. (1993). Does science deal in truth? The Journal of College
Science Teaching, 23(3), 208.
Medawar. P. B. (1963). Is the scientific paper a fraud? In P. B. Medawar.
The Threat and the Glory. (pp. 228-233). New York: HarperCollins.
Menard, H. W. (1986). The ocean of truth: A personal history of global
tectonics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
National Research Council (1994). National science education standards
(Draft). Washington, DC: Author.
Newton, I. (1946). Sir Isaac Newton's mathematical principles of natural
philosophy and his system of the world. (A. Motte, Transl. revised and
appendix supplied by F. Cajori). Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press. (Original work published in 1720).
Pearson,. K. (1937). The grammar of science. London: Dutton.
Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery, (2nd ed.
revised). New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of
scientific knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
Rhodes, G. and Schaible (1989). Fact, law, and theory: Ways of thinking in
science and literature. Journal of College Science Teaching, 18(4),
228-232 & 288.
Rothman, M. A. (1992). The science gap. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Sonleitner, F. J. (1989, Nov/Dec). Theories, laws and all that. National
Center for Science Education, Newsletter, 9(6), 3-4.
Tobias, S. (1990). They're not dumb, they're different: Stalking the
second tier. Tucson, AZ: The Research Corporation.
http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html Maintained by Bill Beaty. Mail me at: billb@eskimo.com.
If you are using Lynx, type "c" to email.
Banshee
11-22-01, 01:20 PM
Boris 2, pretty good job to write it all down here. I really do hope some skeptics browsing the boards will read your post, for it is a very good one....nice job.;)
There's an ounce of gold and an ounce of Spiders in each Legend...little quote by Roger Waters.:p
Nothing to add to this briliant reply of Boris 2...
Rigelsir00
11-22-01, 06:15 PM
Hi,everyone.I am new in this business on the sciforums site.First of all let me congratulate everybody who gave their opinion.They did it super.
Well, I think Tristan means that we live in a oscillating space inside a big cosmos with other universe .Maybe he is right on that point but i doubt about the one I have always been wondering : Does the empty space has always existed?How about particles that we dont even know?The gravity is the escencial factor for every new universe.
Matter causes it to be curvature and it is equal to the extension of it,as our friend said.How can we explain that the universe is expanding wether it should be sucking itself according to Tristan.The gravitation is the only answer.But why faster than ever?
Thank you,
Ted Campos
Que tengan buen día.:)
Does the empty space has always existed?
If I read this right, you are asking whether the universe is expanding, or was created at the big bang, in empty space.
The answer is no. There was no space before the big bang. The big bang created space, time and matter. The BB (Big Bang) was not like an explosion we are familiar with, like a bomb, which is the expansion of matter into pre-existing space.
How about particles that we dont even know?
Not sure what you are trying to say here.
How can we explain that the universe is expanding
The universe is expanding because of the force of the BB. There is not enough matter, Suns, Galaxies etc, so not enough gravity to halt this expansion. Evidence of this is the observed redshifts of distant quasars.
Have a look at the links I provided for a more detailed explanation. The experts can say it better than me. :-)
Thanks Banshee for you praise, it was a cut and paste so not too hard a job. :-)
Boris,
Such myths of science process, although merely first-order approximations of the actual behavior of science practitioners, have come into existence because of the need to simplify for the non-scientist.
E.G.: Banshee.
Boris2,
Don't be taken in by her gratuitous compliments. Banshee is a chronic anti-science, anti-scientist, anti-rationalist.
When she compliments you for providing such a critical assessment of the practice of science, she is like Usama bin Laden complimenting Microsoft for providing him such fine flight simulator software.
;)
No need to worry about me Mr G, I am 46 and seen enough BS on the web to make me a skeptic of the first order.
I'll take people on face value for most of the time as one cannot see people on the web so all the visual clues are absent.
I like science and at the same time am aware of its limitations, but even with those limitations I don't succumb to having to resort to the paranormal or such to fill the gaps.
I would like to believe in all the pseudoscience/paranormal but I need evidence. This evidence must come from scientific not anecdotal sources.
I also try to maintain a friendly mien to all, no matter their beliefs. It is not for me to say whether they are right or wrong, just to try to point out the accepted theories or such.
Exactly the point I have made on several other boards. In popularising a scientific principle the author often misses wads of details pertaining to the applicibility of theory, any opposing theories and the theories general status. In short, it is presented as absolute proof and has the unopposed backing of the establishment. This makes scientists look like unthinking autonomons blindly leading accepted wisdom.
The problem is that to properly explain a point properly requires turning a 300 word press release into a 5000 word full blown journal article that no one will read as it is too turgid.
Boris2, like yourself I endeavour to be pleasant whilst describing accepted wisdom on a point. Flame wars are not my style. Just occasionally some thing demands a true slapping down.
Just my 2 penneths.
Banshee
11-24-01, 04:43 PM
Boris 2 and thed, I respect everybody's opinion and their view on the matters which are discussed. For everybody has to live his/her own life, with his/her own feelings and knowledge.:)
By the way, I am 41 and know enough myself about a lot of matters discussed here at the forums.
I am no fool over whoms head you may speak without even being there.
A little respect please, thank you.
I am no fool over whoms head you may speak without even being there.
Banshee I would not have posted what I did to a public forum if I thought that.
A little respect please, thank you.
I think I show that. I don't think I have put you down for your beliefs, Banshee. I don't personally believe in such things as you do, but they work for you, so who am I to say you are wrong? Like I said I need scientific evidence not anecdotal. This way I can check the facts for myself.
When your only evidence is popular anecdote, for support you're always working your cult of personality for what its worth.
I prefer to be said to be obnoxious so that I can't be construed to be orchestrating cult thinking. Thereby am I more likely to be relying on equally unpopular facts.
:)
Tristan
11-25-01, 12:42 AM
Don't be taken in by her gratuitous compliments. Banshee is a chronic anti-science, anti-scientist, anti-rationalist.
When she compliments you for providing such a critical assessment of the practice of science, she is like Usama bin Laden complimenting Microsoft for providing him such fine flight simulator software.
Wow what a tounge lashing.:mad: Oh by the way it is Osama Bin Laden nit Usama Bin bin Laden.:mad:
Tristan,
Allow me to help: Mr. G, you ugly, obnoxious, worthless pos. Haven't you got a clue that the name of that other pos is spelled with an 'O'?"
Why, yes, Tristan. It can be spelled with an 'O', and quite frequently is.
"Bin bin": Hehe. Nice touch. :p
When I intend a comment for a specific person I address that person directly. I do not and never have talked over people by using alliteration or allusion in any post, here or elsewhere.
My comments where very general, based on 10 years or so experience reading and contributing to numerous science based groups on the Net or at online services.
FYI I'm 37, a Father of 3 kids under 5, with all the trappings that brings. I also work as a computer systems manager (OpenVMS being my speciality) for (currently) a major UK Airline.
Banshee
11-25-01, 01:13 PM
I apologize to Boris and thed for the reply above, but I am getting so tired of always the same insults by some members here on the thread and even elsewhere on other threads I post, they seem to like it to take somebody down because they are some different then they are and what they do/don't believe.
Never ever have I told anybody to believe in anything. That is all up to the human him/herself. I was just ticked off and really tired of it, for it keeps on going and never can they let me be.
So I am sorry for the reply above.
Well, I found some interesting links for as well the scientists as for the Cosmologists among us.
Maybe that will work for either one of us, no matter what your theories or thinking is.
Hope it will work out.
First I have got a very nice link which concerns the new exploration of a Pyramid, found near Cuba, deeply hidden under the Ocean.
Guess you better all check it out, for there is news here which perhaps you all want to read.
Let me know what you think about it.
Tristan, you should read it, very interesting, gives you a lot to think about.
http://www.earthfiles.com/earth303.htm
Then I have got another link, just from a mailinglist I am a member of in the Outlook, for the more scientifical thinkers among you. Guess you will like to read this one.
So you see, it is not all Cosmic theories I am reading and dealing with. I have a lot of this kind of links and they all come from that one particular mailinglist.
A Psychic mailinglist....
May you all have a good time reading it, for this is really interesting oh scientifical ones. (just a joke).
Please, it is meant to everybody, no matter what your theories or way of thinking is, read it you all, scientifical ones and Cosmologists.
Will you please read it and let me know what you are thinking of it?
Thank you so much...
http://www.ananova.com/yournews/story/sm_454631.html
Apology accepted, I was never insulted or angry anyway. Just feel that setting the record straight is important, or you will feel that I have it in for you.
You mention that people go for you on other boards, for your ideas, as well? I'd like to offer a reason for this.
One thing you will find with people who are from a scientific background is that they hardly ever are concerned about the messenger. That is, they are a free wheeling, free thinking bunch who are probably more open minded than most and can be extremely intolerant of apparent intolerance. But one thing they are is deeply sceptical and deeply against anything that demands <u>unthinking</u> acceptance. For this reason the rise of New Age mysticism, or anything of its ilk, will rise the ire of a sceptic/scientist. But, and a big but, they will attack the message and not, generally, the messanger.
If you have a deep commitment to a paradigm that counters this scepticism and way of thought it will appear they are attacking you, by virtue of that commitment. Science demands that you have no preconceptions so scientists are unlikely to put this level of commitment in an idea.
If you want to get into the mind of a hardened debunker I would suggest you read Carl Sagans "A Demon haunted World, science as a candle in the dark". Even other debunkers are debunked for their attachment to 'too much reality'. James Randi specifically gets it in the neck.
If I get time tomorrow I'll comment on the URL about gas clouds going into the Sun.
Dave "Scepticism is the path to joy" Barlow
Sunward-moving gases are not that difficult to understand.
The sun is made of gases. The sun is very hot. The hot gases of the sun lose electrons and become charged plasma. The free electrons move around. The moving electrons create electric currents. The electric currents create magnetic fields. Magnetic fields control the movement of plasmas and electrons.
Gas clouds falling toward the surface of the sun are not new. Prominences expand upward as magnetic fields expand. Prominence gases when cooling, condense and move sunward down controling magnetic field lines.
The particular motion of solar gases linked to above is the apparent result of collapsing magnetic fields dragging gases back toward the sun's surface -- as oppposed to the more familiar mechanism of cooling gases sliding down magnetic field lines.
Only a surprise having not been seen before.
James R
11-25-01, 09:43 PM
At the invitation of Banshee, I have just read this thread and the links from it. Two things strike me:
1. The certainty with which people have stated their "theories".
If you've ever read a scientific article, you'll be aware that scientists are always careful to qualify statements they make. A lot of science can seem boring to outsiders, because so much care is taken to back up statements with facts and to clearly delineate evidence from conjecture. Scientists say things like "We <i>think</i> that X is the case.", "As far as we can tell, the value of Y is 2.6, plus or minus 0.4", "It <i>could</i> be that Z, but we need further evidence to be able to tell for sure."
In contrast, look at just one of the statements in this thread. "The Earth <b>will</b> suffer a natural disaster which <b>will</b> wipe out <b>2/3</b> of the population in the next 40 years." Is there any evidence in sight? No. Only one person's say-so. Can we check the truth of the statement for ourselves? No, because that one person has access to "special" information which is his or hers alone.
2. The scattergun approach: every "theory" is equally valid.
When critical thinking is turned off, people start believing everything they are told. Hence, believers in psychic powers often also believe in messages from aliens, ghosts, astrology, pyramid power, the Bermuda triangle, and a host of other things for which there is no evidence. Everything which sounds good is true, by default. No actual evidence is required for anything, and anybody who dares ask for evidence is put down as an "unimaginative scientist". In fact, scientists are among the most imaginative and creative people there are, but they always keep a reality check on their imaginations. In science, if a theory doesn't fit the evidence, it must be thrown out.
There are many misconceptions about science and the practice of science visible in this thread. I urge everybody to read Boris2's informative post on this topic.
Science would not progress if there were no checks or balances on outlandish ideas. Your microwave oven wouldn't exist, because nobody would have discovered enough about electromagnetism to invent one. When no effort is made to distinguish fact from fantasy, you're left in a prison of your own imagination, constantly surrounded by insubstantial shadows and blind to what is real.
There are outlandish ideas in science that have turned out to be true. Real science has enough surprises to sustain anybody's interest for a lifetime. Why resort to shallow stories with no substance? You have to be suspicious of people who tell you they have all the answers.
James R, a very valid point if I may say so. As Carl Sagan put it, Science is a way of not deluding yourself.
Pollux V
11-26-01, 09:06 AM
Oi it's been so hard catching up! Being away from the forums for three days is AGONY. How did you do it banshee????
Nice Avatar thed.
I'm just going to continue to watch this one for awhile, yet I recall banshee saying that two thirds of all the humans on Earth were going to die. Are there any updates to this?
Banshee
11-26-01, 04:37 PM
Thank you for the replies. They were to be expected as they came.
:)
Good for you, all this different thinking....
Never said a thing about theories, it is an interview, only an interview....
Why not take a look at the Internet yourself, for there is hard, scientific evidence to be found there. Go look it up yourselves. Search engines enough. Keyword: Atlantis.
What about the Pyramid? That was the main item.
As far as the link at Ananova concerns, you know it all from the start, don't you. Well, I have given it a try.....
It are good links....everybody can handle the information as they like or just ignore it.
That is what they were posted for.
Not to put theories deep under the skin of the members who are posting here.
Have fun discussing all the theories you have. I will read them all, with OPEN MIND.
But don't start hitting me as I want to say my part of the discussions going on here.
Thank you very much.
The peak of the last ice age, when sea level would have been lowest, occured 20,000 years ago. By best guesstimate, sea level at the peak of the last ice age was 300 meters/~1000ft lower than today -- half the apparent depth of west Cuba's submerged site.
Some 14,000 years ago, world-wide sea level (http://www.state.me.us/doc/nrimc/pubedinf/factsht/marine/sealevel.htm) is estimated to have been 110 meters/360 feet below current sea level.
Egyptian pyramids were constructed sometime between 2700 to 2100 bc. Egyptologists have narrowed that time period to a general date of 2450 B.C.. Mesoamerica's first pyramids were constructed between approximately 100 B.C. and A.D. 300. Atlantis supposedly sank (http://www.parascope.com/en/bermuda2.htm) 13,000 years ago.
The existence of west-Cuban, submerged, Mesoamerican-era pyramids, 2,000+ feet down, seems highly questionable, since the level of the sea at the time of their supposed construction would not permit construction in that area anytime at all in the last 20,000 years, and certainly no time coincident with either Egyptian, Greek or Mesoamerican pyramids/structures/writing/symbols.
Let us all wait for the pictures and the scientific analysis over the coming years before leaping to conclusions.
Banshee
The Earthfiles.com URL was interesting for many reasons.
First off, it seems to me that the level of speculation was enormous. Secondly, the interviewer was talking to people who, probably, have already committed themselves to a specific theory. Hence they could be guilty of selection bias in the evidence.
As I understood the argument on the page it went like this. Some one found some underwater artefacts that may be artificial. There where apparently some form of petroglyphs on these artefacts. The petroglyphs have yet to be translated. (Note that no imagery of the glyphs was presented to indicate how obvious these where). One petroglyph was a simple cross structure formed from 2 ellipses. This petroglyph was identified as also being used by the Etruscans. The conclusion was then that the same culture was responsible. As I mentioned about Von Daniken this is a case of assuming two things that co-incidentally look alike are some how linked. Not always a valid asumption.
The argument then switched to an interview with someone who appears convinced that Atlantis exists and who quoted data from a catastrophist conference hosted by a Velikovskian organisation [1]. On this site two Swedish geologists/scientists used evidence from alluvian/pluval flooding and metallic spherules possibly showing evidence of melting, reforming and shock (it was not said explicitly) that a Comet hit the Earth. To bolster this argument the Etruscans are referred to as mysterious and having mysterious origins.
From this the conclusion was that a Comet destroyed Atlantis, the survivors founded the Etruscan civilization and where/had been responsible for the underwater structures off Peru.
All this from one symbol, poorly imaged by video camera and still not analysed properly by other experts.
You will pardon me if I seem less than convinced and deeply sceptical. A better interpretation might be that these structures are manmade but have no relation to anything. Only if a significant number of petroglyphs matching Etruscan ones where found would a case be made. Using Velikovskian sources for data weakens any scientific case as well.
As Mr. G. says, more analysis is needed before leaping to conclusions.
[1] In which another 'scientist' cites black holes as the cause of galactic structure and Spirals evolving into Ellipticals despite any morpological evidence of transitionary forms and Ellipticals being seen in the early Universe. Also quoted where Drs. Wickramasinghe and Hoyle.
MuliBoy
11-28-01, 01:56 AM
In which manner is scientific knowledge accurate?
Isnīt science just theories proven right by scientific research?
Where is the proof that these truths arenīt just created by the scientists and its believers?
Is science based on empirical facts?
Doesnīt that demand that you have cause, effect and consequense mapped from beginning to end?
Doesnīt this mean that science is in a state of constant mapping and never beyond the confines of theory?
What elevates science above any other belief-system?
Isnīt Carl Sagan a cult leader?
Originally posted by MuliBoy
[B]In which manner is scientific knowledge accurate?
Scientific knowledge is only as accurate as the data supporting it. Probably many of the current ideas are open to further improvement.
That said, its good enough that we put satellites into orbit to talk over mobile phones, we can detect genetic defects, can design vaccines and antibiotics, build computers and the Internet. All from known scientific principle.
Isnīt science just theories proven right by scientific research?
Yes. But a theory is not 'just' a theory. You are using this almost as a derogatory term as if a theory can be simply ignored and brushed aside.
The Newtonian Theory of Gravity is only a theory, using that context. Yet it sucessfully put Man on the Moon and numerous probes around the Planets. Not bad for 'just' a theory.
The theory of quantum Physics is only a 'theory' yet is successfully used to design and build silicon chips used every day. Not bad for 'just' a theory.
The term you really want is hypothesis. That is, a theoretical attempt to explain some observed fact. A hypothesis must include some testable result and some way of negating itself. It becomes a theory after it passes the burden of experimentatal proof. It can be replaced anytime an experiment or new observation negates the theory
The question should then become, Is science an ongoing attempt at explaining reality using Hypotheses, Theories and facts?
Where is the proof that these truths arenīt just created by the scientists and its believers?
You are sitting in front of it. As I said to Banshee, you use technological gadgets every day designed on 'just' theories. You put your life in the hands of 'just' the theory of aerodynamics every time you board a plane. The proof is all around you, open your eyes and look.
If any of our modern society was somehow an invention of the mind alone do you think a TV or radio would work. What about mobile phones? Fridges, Pharamceuticals? Surgery? CD/DVD Players? Are all these devices, tools and knowledge just created by the believers of science.
Is science based on empirical facts?
Yes, see above.
Doesnīt that demand that you have cause, effect and consequense mapped from beginning to end?
Yes, see above on definitions of hypothesis and theory. But, and a big but, we can not see the full facts in one go so science is constantly evolving and changing.
It does not claim to be 100% right all the time. A wise person once said to me that science is about 99.99% failure and only .01% success.
[/QUOTE]Doesnīt this mean that science is in a state of constant mapping and never beyond the confines of theory?[/QUOTE]
See above. New data can always overthrow an accepted theory.
What elevates science above any other belief-system?
It is not a belief system. Equating the two is like asking which is the better to eat, a Smorgasboard or my Television.
Isnīt Carl Sagan a cult leader?
What has Carl Sagan got to do with anything? This is a non sequitor.
I can name cult leaders for you, Rev. Moon and whatshisname Rael. Implying Sagan is on a par with these odious characters is disingenious.
Equating a science populariser with the leaders of religions and cults is another classic trick to make science look like a religion. Its another attempt to make people think Science is only in the mind with as much validity as an opinion.
The difference between science and opions/religions is that religions have not invented anything yet nor have opinions. Science has.
The above questions are a classic attack used by 'woo-woo' believers to justify themselves and turn the argument around, away from the point at hand. The trick is to make Science look like a belief system, like any other belief system and hence only as valid. The next trick is to equate science to a cult and hence some how dirty and capable of tricks, smoke and mirrors to justify iteself.
Your phraseology above gave that away. Questions such as Where is the proof that these truths arenīt just created by the scientists and its believers?. Followed by Isnīt Carl Sagan a cult leader?
As I say above, your allusion that science is all in the mind worth no basis in reality would mean the orbit of the Earth about the Sun was only held together by wishful thinking and only became valid when Newton discovered gravity.
The obvious logical fallacy of your questions is left as an exercise for the reader to disentangle.
SeekerOfTruth
11-28-01, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by thed
....Science demands that you have no preconceptions so scientists are unlikely to put this level of commitment in an idea....
Thed,
Although I agree this should be the case, too often I have seen that scientists in general can be so focused on their own ideological beliefs in a particular paradigm, cosmological belief, or pet theory, that they are unopen to thoughts that vie with their own beliefs, even when those thoughts may be correct. I am a research engineer at a University in the US and I have experienced this type of thought process so often I have almost lost hope that anyone will discover anything new.
Without an open mind, Einstein would never have come up with the theory of relativity, it was far too radical an idea that went against conventional theory or thought at the time. Every major discovery in science has been this way, a radical alteration of the then current views on the universe. Yes, I require proof, but lack of proof does not imply lack of truth, just a lack of understanding or knowledge on humanity's part.
You got me there. What I am presenting is a perfect case, of sorts. You are right, scientists are human and just as liable to foibles.
What I am thinking of though is that most, the vast majority, od scientists can change their viewpoint if the evidence is against them. Only in a few rare cases will some one refuse to admit they are wrong. Such as the likes of Arp and Hoyle.
YMMV.
Tristan
11-28-01, 05:25 PM
Its my Birthday! =D
Well, congratulations!
You've survived one more revolution of the sun. Here's hoping the next is completed in similar good health.
Fine.ThE BB CREATE OUR UNIVERSE RIGHT?SO,WASNT IT A EXPLOSION
CAUSED BY THE BALL WITH ALL THE DENSITY?GIVE A BREAK WE CAN DEFINE IT AS A BOMB.EVENTHOUGH, IT CREATED MATTER , TIME, AND SPACE.AND I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE PLENTY OF PARTCLES IN EMPTY SPACE THAT COULD HOLD THE KEY WHY OUR UNIVERSE IS LIKE WHAT IT IS.
xvenomousx
12-06-01, 09:30 PM
I always thought science was about facts not opinions and view points. Alot of scientists will risk riddicule to speak out about their discoveries and ideas and accept defeat if they are wrong. All scientists often come across findings that force them to change their preconcieved beliefs, so after a while they learn to not have belieafs that they hold too strongly at least.
Banshee
12-07-01, 03:05 PM
Why is it then that the scientists keep on believing so strongly that there is water under the surface of Mars?
Just because they've found some paticals of atoms which are coming from the outcast of the Sun and seem to be like Oygen and Ozon which are fallen on the surface of Mars?
Does that proof that there is WATER under Mars's surface?
Couldn't it be some totally other liquid?
Just a thought...not a statement.
Banshee
12-07-01, 03:45 PM
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html
Just to have said something about Mars. Read this.
It should belong in another Topic, but just for once...
MuliBoy
12-09-01, 06:52 PM
Thed.
The questions I made are just to prove a point.
Empirical evidence does not exist.
Science is a belief system. No buts about it.
It works, sure, but the question is, does it work because itīs true, or because the priests of technology expect it to?
Iīm talking projection here.
Interaction based results.
Holism.
Science has no means to find reason or meaning to excistance. It simply points out the mechanics of the system. I am in no means anti-science, I love the comforts and entertainment it brings. I also indulge in the comfort and entertainment of etheral life, psychedelic life. Food for the soul.
The only woo-wooīs I have is that many ppl seem to think itīs one thing or the other. Faith or science (while at the same time expressing diehard faith in science:D).
And yes, I do see Carl Sagan as a cult leader (being one doesnīt have to be a bad thing. The cult may be benign). Itīs not the leader that bothers me, itīs the blind followers.
Self righteous with billowing banners.
Whatīs your hymn?
c'est moi
12-09-01, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by thed
Such as the likes of Arp and Hoyle.
YMMV.
why is Arp wrong in his red shift interpretation, it makes sense to me :)
Rambler
12-09-01, 07:59 PM
you wrote,
__________
Why is it then that the scientists keep on believing so strongly that there is water under the surface of Mars?
Just because they've found some paticals of atoms which are coming from the outcast of the Sun and seem to be like Oygen and Ozon which are fallen on the surface of Mars?
Does that proof that there is WATER under Mars's surface?
Couldn't it be some totally other liquid?
Just a thought...not a statement.
__________
Are you sure???, 'cause I fail to see how that qualifies as a thought...
Are you sure???, 'cause I fail to see how that qualifies as a thought.
Hehehehe. Good Post. Keep up the good work.
c'est moi,
why is Arp wrong in his red shift interpretation, it makes sense to me
Precisely why he must be wrong. :D
Originally posted by c'est moi
why is Arp wrong in his red shift interpretation, it makes sense to me :)
Applying the Address Resoluton Protocol to Red Shift probably does make more sense.
H. Arp has only found a few cases (compared to the number of observations) where a high red-shift object was visually near a low red-shift object. He has not adequately ruled out chance alignment. Last I heard his data had been rechecked and found to be just that, chance visual alignments. The Universe is truly a big place.
Banshee
12-10-01, 11:39 AM
Rambler, scientists think from out the Earth. They are trying to find life on other Planets and seem to think that it has to be in the same way life exists on Earth.
Why can't it be in another way then on Earth?
They have scientific theories enough and it makes good sense if you hear and read all about it, but it still are theories.
Just as my looking at this scientifical 'proof'. Just my theory and from a lot of other humans...
The Universe is a very large surrounding and Earth is just a Planet existing in this Solar system.
That doesn't proof that if there was life, (on Mars for instance) that it had to be in the same way as on Earth.
Could have been different and until there is real hard evidence I have my own theory about it. And with me a lot of other humans, which doesn't say I am not interested. I keep up with the scientists and their discovery's...
Rambler
12-10-01, 07:00 PM
Banshee,
------------------
Rambler, scientists think from out the Earth. They are trying to find life on other Planets and seem to think that it has to be in the same way life exists on Earth.
------------------
What do you base that conclusion on???
I think that science needs to base their ideas searches etc in reality otherwise its speculation and not science. There is nothing wrong with speculating as long as you don't expect a result.
------------------
Why can't it be in another way then on Earth?
------------------
It can I don't think anyone is arguing that it can't, but we need some idea of what we are looking for otherwise we'll never find it...therefore it would be more fruitfull to limit our "search" to things we know about (i.e. carbon based life, EM waves for communications etc)...it's not about possibilties but more about propability.
------------------
They have scientific theories enough and it makes good sense if you hear and read all about it, but it still are theories
------------------
So what do you propose as an alternative??? the world according to Banshee, living rocks, phsycic powers and talking planets???
------------------
Just as my looking at this scientifical 'proof'. Just my theory and from a lot of other humans...
------------------
Is that an attempt to give your ideas some credability?? 'cause if it is then it's not enough to say other people believe you, anyone can say that...
------------------
Could have been different and until there is real hard evidence I have my own theory about it. And with me a lot of other humans, which doesn't say I am not interested. I keep up with the scientists and their discovery's...
------------------
LOL, all I've seen you do is tell everyone how wrong science is and then run and hide when you are asked to support your statement with some facts. If you kept up with what is going on in science your view's on science etc would not be so nieve.
I don't care how many times you repeat yourself, it's NOT enough just to make claims, at some point if you want to be taken seriously you need to support what yuou say with facts, and evidence.
MuliBoy
12-10-01, 07:10 PM
living rocks, phsycic powers and talking planets???
You donīt like that? Thatīs where I live. Youīre missing out on some great fun man :)
my theory is much like banshees,
I believe that the only true reality is love and this love is what created the universe. Everything else is an illusion. Like Banshee I believe that we all created a chart that planned our life with a mission before we came here. The fifth dimension is around us just on a higher vibration, so we can't see it. I believe that the universe and other universes were created as a thought in gods mind. Of course there is probably some scientific background to
the beginning on some alien world in another dimension.
"Today I have learned the law of love; that what I give my brother is my gift to me"
"Some part of our being knows this is where we came
from. We long to return. And we can, because the
Cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff."
- Carl Sagan
James R
12-13-01, 12:32 AM
Hi zaleia,
Welcome to sciforums.
What you've said sounds nice, but do you have any reason for believing all that stuff, other than that it sounds good?
Just wondering. (I could ask Banshee the same thing.)
Banshee
12-13-01, 01:13 PM
Zaleia, be welcome at Sciforums.
Good to see someone with the same theory here. :)
But there is one difference. I do not believe in god.
We are all coming from the Cosmos and will return back there after our Earth bound body refuses to stay alive any longer.
As far as the everlasting questions for evidence concern...
Do you scientists ever read Cosmological theories? there are a lot to be found at the Internet, just as easy as you can find the Scientifical theories at the Internet.
Guess you have to be more open for it and not stay so focussed at only the Scientifical sites and knowledge you have.
There is more going on then only Scientifical theories...
And I do read the Scientifical sites...;)
James R
12-14-01, 08:43 PM
Banshee,
Yes, you can find lots of stuff on the internet. Most of it undergoes no process of testing or review, and a lot of it has absolutely no evidence to back it up. Some of it is just plain contradicted by the observed facts.
I've seen a LOT of pseudoscientific cosmological theories. None of them comes anywhere near having the explanatory power of our latest scientific theories.
There are indeed a lot if alternative science sies out on the Net. It's an ideal place for people to publish any personal agendas. But, you need to read web pages with your personal debunkers handbook ready and waiting.
Hi,
Its time this thread is given a rating,can you believe the day i registered it was having 60 replies,(i think) and now it is already 201.
bye!
Unfortunately, allowance has not been made for negative ratings ;)
To Boris 2,
Thanks for that great post on science myths. I've pasted it to a document to read again in order to digest it a bit further. I regret that the wonders of science, in all its forms, was not highlighted during my school years. At 45, I'm now trying to become a sponge for information.
Could you tell us a bit more about the Aussie forum you mentioned? Or PM me with the information. I'd be grateful, thanks.
Teri
See this thread for the site link:
http://www.sciforums.com/t4267/s/thread.html
Banshee
12-28-01, 01:35 PM
I really don't get all my 'stuff' from the Internet. Like you, I have been studying for years. And a lot of what I am now, I found out by living my life.
The knowledge how 'things' work, I have from my study, the knowledge of living, I found out by living my life here on Earth.
And not everything in life is proven with scientific evidence.
Isn't this Topic called:'Are We From Cosmic Origin...'?
So you want to prove something different. Ok, start with your prove of where we are coming from then. Now please!!
Thank you and have a nice day...
Brainz0
12-28-01, 05:45 PM
To get back to the original assertions about black holes being the source of the something that makes a new cosmos, this is not relevant...where did the first black hole come from?
So the "Cosmic Egg" is literally something that pops out of nothingness. The definition of true vacuum, nothingness, is that all possible particles and their anti-particles might appear at any point, and then annihilate each other. Rarely, they don't and go off in opposite directions. Once, one such particle was the super dense one called the Cosmic Egg. It expanded very rapidly, generated a nearly equal number of particles and anti-particles within itself--which proceed to annihilate each other, producing a huge energy flux now reduced to the low-frequency microwave background we now see coming from all directions. The leftovers made the universe as we know it.
That's the classic BB theory. No black holes or previous matter, space, time existence required.
Banshee
12-30-01, 11:48 AM
Exactly, classical BB-THEORY. No evidence.:)
'I have always been here
I have always looked out from behind these eyes
It feels more than a lifetime
More than a lifetime...'
'Is this the way it has always have been?
'Could it ever have been different?
It's only a lifetime
It's only a lifetime...';) - P.Floyd
The Cosmos has always been here. Your mind has always been here. There is a big difference between your brain and your mind. Think about that...:)
Have a nice day.
Brainz0
12-30-01, 12:29 PM
Theory that can be tested against outside information and observation gets to be called a scientific theory. Religious theory rejects all such testing, because it might fail, and that is unacceptable.
It is hard for a consciousness to conceive that it can end or not exist. But unawareness is not a test of truth. "I can't believe..." "I can't imagine..." "I can't understand..." are often used as expressions of doubt or evidence that something is impossible. But they are just literal statements of personal mental inadequancy.
Banshee
12-30-01, 02:01 PM
So you mean I 'believe'...? As in religion?
May I laugh about that WITH evidence.:p
Didn't you read my post well? I will always be here. It is only A (one) lifetime...
No can't believe or can't imagine what so ever.:)
Brainz0
12-30-01, 03:37 PM
So, what were you doing 10^16 days ago? Give or take a couple.
James R
12-30-01, 07:21 PM
Banshee,
<i>Exactly, classical BB-THEORY. No evidence.</i>
Statements like that make you look silly.
There is an extraordinary amount of evidence for the big bang, including:
1. The presence of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
2. The relative abundances of hydrogen and helium in the universe.
3. The observed expansion of the universe.
...just for a start.
Banshee
12-31-01, 01:21 PM
Theories. No more than theories. What arrogance to think the human race has all the answers, made by human inventions and named after humans invented words.
They may have found helium and hydrogen in this Universe. So what? It seems only logical to me, because Earth is part of this Universe and thus part of this solar system. Nothing strange about finding the same 'materials' in this solar system, for all Planets react on eachother, by circling all around one and the same Sun.
What if the Sun dies?
Is this Universe expanding? The scientists THINK it is. They don't know it for sure. Observations? And because of these obsevations it is true? They can't even make up their minds about the Black Holes. It MAY be so, it CAN be so...All theories.
Brainz0, 10 - 16 days ago I was here in this world on this Earth in this Universe. ;)
Brainz0
12-31-01, 02:29 PM
No, Banshee. That's 10^16, not 10-16. That means 10,000,000,000,000,000 days. It's called scientific notation. It can also be expressed as 10E16, where E refers to "exponent".
:)
James R
01-01-02, 05:39 AM
Banshee,
<i>Theories. No more than theories. What arrogance to think the human race has all the answers, made by human inventions and named after humans invented words.</i>
The three points above are not theories. They are observed facts - features of the observed universe. Your second sentence above is a <i>non sequitur</i> in the current context. Sure, it would be arrogant for anybody to claim to have all the answers, but I haven't seen anybody make that claim here.
<i>They may have found helium and hydrogen in this Universe. So what?</i>
You missed the point. I talked about <i>relative abundances</i> of hydrogen and helium in the universe. The big bang theory predicts that the universe should contain hydrogen and helium atoms in an approximately 3 to 1 ratio, and that by far the majority of atoms in the universe should be hydrogen. And, guess what we see when we look out at the universe? Exactly what is predicted by the big bang. One more quantitative vindication of the theory.
<i>Is this Universe expanding? The scientists THINK it is. They don't know it for sure.</i>
Yes they do. The expansion is accepted unequivocally by practically every scientist. Ever heard of Edwin Hubble? Guess why they named a space telescope after him. What do you think he might have been the first to discover?
<i>They can't even make up their minds about the Black Holes.</i>
Wrong. Black holes are very well defined and studied objects. Just because <i>you</i> don't understand them doesn't mean scientists don't.
Banshee
01-01-02, 11:01 AM
I understand it all pretty well, thank you.:)
It is real nice to see your reactions. How about the neutrinos?
Tell me your 'vision'.
And the Black Holes are a mystery...only theories...nothing proven and I think I understand it much better than you think. I am not a fool.
It took the scientists quite a while either before they came to the conclusion that the Sun is not acting as they expected.
Neutrino's please.:) And explain to me how come that a chain reaction has badly damaged one of the world's leading particle physics instruments. The underground Super-Kamiokande Observatory in Japan detects neutrino particles as they pass through the Earth. One of the detectors inside a huge tank of water exploded which in turn led to more than 11,000 others also blowing up. Scientists still aren't sure how the accident happened and why the explosion of one photomultiplier tube also destroyed the rest.
Give me your explanation and how to handle neutrinos and muons.
And don't forget the fact that neutrinos flow through your body by millions every second of the day. All part of the Cosmos and this solar system.
Oh, and I know how eager you scientists are to observe with large telescope's in Space. The more the better. How about all the garbage you leave behind, on Mars for instance?
Brainz0, doesn't matter how far back you want to go. I was here, in the world, on Earth, in this Universe. Or maybe...I was on another world, on another Earth, in another Universe. There are parallel Universes.:) But I guess that is to much for your limited understanding.
Have fun...I know I have.
And a Happy New Year to you all.;)
cygnusco24
01-01-02, 11:18 PM
Let us please remember E=MC2 the creation of the matter entering
your black hole is converted to energy not more matter therfor the question still remains where did the original "stuff" come from Being an agnostic this is easy for me to say but i would love some one to come up with the answer to that.
Brainz0
01-01-02, 11:29 PM
Black holes and Big Bangs are unrelated.
Mass falling into a black hole is not converted to energy. Both energy and mass entering a black hold add to its mass.
The Big Bang does not require that the matter/energy it generates does not "come from" somewhere. It is spontaneously created from virtual space, nothingness. This is hard to imagine or envisage because it does not correspond to anything in our experience. But quantum fluctuation is well-documented. It's all a matter of degree.
James R
01-01-02, 11:51 PM
Banshee,
Much as you protest that you know all about black holes and neutrinos, from my point of view you appear to know little of those things. I, on the other hand, am making a career out of knowing about such things.
When somebody says "black hole" to me, I think general relativity, the Schwarzschild metric, Hawking radiation, active galactic nuclei, tensors, and a Disney movie with a cute robot. :) What do you think of? Probably what you've seen on TV.
I'm not sure what you're referring to with your oblique references to neutrinos. If you're thinking of the solar neutrino problem, whereby we detect fewer electron neutrinos than we thought we should, that problem is currently under investigation. In fact, it seems to be solved by the theory of neutrino oscillations. Have you heard of that theory? Would you like me to explain it to you?
I hadn't heard about the Super-K thing before. Please link me to more information and I'll get back to you with an opinion if you want one. I don't think aliens were responsible. Or psychic powers. But I'll need to check out the evidence to be sure.
<i>Give me your explanation and how to handle neutrinos and muons.</i>
Handle them in what way?
<i>How about all the garbage you leave behind, on Mars for instance?</i>
With respect, there's bugger all rubbish on Mars. VERY few spacecraft have landed there.
<i>There are parallel Universes.</i>
Evidence for this statement, please!
I don't want to offend you, but James R is right. There is a world of knowledge out there that we have not yet discovered, but there is also a very large amount of knowledge already accumulated regarding the origin of our universe.
I also spend time studying this aspect of cosmology and in doing so I have found how little I know of all sciences, which tends to frustrate me no end. I would love to know everything that has already been discovered and from that knowlege I can theorise all I want, but the truth of the matter is that in our lives we probably will not know the secrets of the universe.
I remember being told at school that the atom was the smallest particle there is (and I believed my teachers - as you would - being a kid) however when it was discovered that man had split the atom I realised that knowledge is constantly growing. We need to question everything.
The same with religion - being told that Adam and Eve were the first humans to walk the earth by teachers that I trusted were telling me the truth, proved devastating when a few years later, a history teacher laughed at me for believing in such rubbish in front of the whole class.
You might well believe everything you are writing on these forums now, but I'd like to urge you to keep an open mind. The universe to me is a wonderous topic, and I would imagine that the true scientist never stops asking questions. Please don't take this the wrong way, but don't limit yourself to what you have learned so far, for there is much to learn.
Stay healthy
Love
Teri
Banshee
01-02-02, 01:49 PM
Don't believe everything I am writing down here. It is just to keep James R. busy. He is so well educated. More than someone else it seems. So let him come up with something I don't know yet.
As far as all the education from my school years concern, I've learned that it all was very relative. Did you really believe the story about Adam and Eve? I never did. Not even when I was in school and I am raised christian. It never sounded good to me, like something was wrong with this picture of a garden of Eden, with only 2 figures in it AND an 'evil' Snake? And this god created only good? How can that be? As far as atoms and so on concern, I know my lessons very well. ;)
James R., I don't watch television, don't believe what they say on television and I don't like Disney movies. Sorry to disappoint you in this. As far as my knowledge goes...it goes a long way. Don't you have Insight? Or Intuition if you prefer to call it that.:)
Brainz0, never heard about parallel Universes? Lack of education then. I am sorry.
The Cosmos exists and so do other Universes. There is a real good possibility (as in THEORY) that there are other worlds like ours out there. In a different Universe. Perhaps a duplicate of you yourself is walking out there. The only things you and James are come up with, are 'facts', which occur to be theories for the most part. How come that humans have to hold a perfect grip on everything and that they perse want evidence for everything. Not everything is proven and there is a lot that is not to be explained by evidence. You act just the same as the godbelievers. You need to have control, for otherwise you are lost.:)
Oh, now I have to watch out...Give me your comments again.:p I really have a good time with this...
Especially for you, not from the internet and not from the television:
'There are only two ways to live your life;
-One is as though nothing is a Miracle-
-The other is as though everything is...'-
- ~ Albert Einstein ~ -
Banshee
01-02-02, 02:28 PM
From Tesla, the genius inventor and great grandfather of modern day electromagnetic energy, wrote in his essay on man's Greatest Achievement:
"There manifests itself in the fully developed being -MAN- a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate
Nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.
Inspired to his task he searches, discovers and invents, designs and constructs...
What has the future in store for this strange being, born on
a breath, of perishable tissue, yet immortal, with his powers
fearful and divine? What magic will be wrought by him in the
end? What is to be his greatest deed, his crowning achievement?
Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance...filling all space...luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the lifegiving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles, all things, and whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion eases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance.
Can man control this grandest, most awe-inspiring of all processes in Nature?
If he could do this he would have powers almost unlimited and supernatural...He could originate and develop life in all its infinite forms.
To create and to annihilate material substance, cause it to
aggregate in forms according to his desire, would be the
supreme manifestation of the power of man's mind, his most
complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning
achievement, which would place him beside 'All That Is' (the Cosmos), make him fulfill his ultimate destiny."
From "Healing Codes for the Biological Apocalypse" By Len Horowitz.
NOT FROM THE INTERNET OR TELEVISION IN ANY WAY!!...:)
Brainz0
01-02-02, 02:30 PM
Banshee;
I am quite familiar with parallel universe speculations...I've read quite a bit by Penrose and Wheeler. Here are some interesting links, too: http://naturalscience.com/ns/books/book02.html
and
http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/documents/many-worlds-faq.html
One thing you may have a hard time integrating is the necessary corollory that your personal identity splits into innumerable versions of yourself in this cosmology, so you are no more unique than a droplet in a cloud of near-identical droplets. Personally, I'm not quite ready to buy into this casual equation of human minds with specks of matter. It may turn out that the many-worlds hypothesis is an artifact of our descriptive abilities and techniques; math and symbol systems are quite promiscuous and arbitrary once you turn them loose on a set of assumptions. Internal consistency is their God. I think more experience and observation awaits inclusion in these models, and much of what is orthodoxy today will come to seem like the bootless logic elaborations of the Scholastics in medieval theology.
Brainz0
01-02-02, 02:36 PM
Ever hear of Michaelson & Morley?
Banshee
01-03-02, 01:19 PM
I am just a drop of water in an endless Sea.:)
In parallel Universes. Just another being of the Cosmos, like you...;)
James R
01-03-02, 10:29 PM
Banshee,
<i>So let [James] come up with something I don't know yet.</i>
Stick around. It won't happen overnight, but it <i>will</i> happen! :)
<i>James R., I don't watch television, don't believe what they say on television and I don't like Disney movies. Sorry to disappoint you in this.</i>
Perhaps you should tune in to the Discovery Channel (or whatever you have where you are) once in a while.
<i>Don't you have Insight? Or Intuition if you prefer to call it that.</i>
Yep, but I like to check that my intuition is correct by looking for evidence to support it. I don't just believe any idea that sounds good or makes me happy.
<i>The Cosmos exists and so do other Universes.</i>
Why so certain? How do you know? What is your belief in this fact based on? That's all I'm trying to do here, Banshee - to get you to critically examine <i>why</i> you believe some of the things you do. Do you have <i>good</i> reasons?
<i>There is a real good possibility (as in THEORY) that there are other worlds like ours out there.</i>
See, now that's more scientific. I agree that there is a possibility of other worlds like ours out there. What I dispute is that we know for sure that there are.
<i>Not everything is proven and there is a lot that is not to be explained by evidence.</i>
What makes you believe that there are things for which there is no evidence? It seems a strange thing to believe, if you ask me. What on Earth could such a belief be based on?
<i>You act just the same as the godbelievers. You need to have control, for otherwise you are lost.</i>
If there's one thing science does it is give you some perspective of your relative insignificance in the Grand Scheme of Things. Belief in science often involves a surrender of control.
<i>I really have a good time with this... </i>
I hope so. I would hate you to feel like you're under attack or something.
Banshee
01-04-02, 11:39 AM
Why do I have to believe in something? I know it for certain. Just because I am not like you and don't think the same way you do?
I am 41 years old and lived all those years from out what I FEEL is right. I studied even a long time to be sure I was sure.:)
Some way or another, my way of living and Intuition is right. Perhaps there is more than you want to accept in life.
I know the 'things' you humans want to explain so very strongly and scientists do their very best to give evidence for everything there is on Earth and in this Universe. But even you have to admit that there are factors in life which DON'T have evidence and still it exists.:)
Why always the asking for evidence? Afraid to lose control?
I don't have a television at the moment and YES, I did watch Discovery frequently. As I watched the Geography channel.;)
As far as parallel Universes concern...I don't go into this with you. To much trouble. You can find that part back in the Parapsychology Forum as soon as I come to the subject. I have to write it down in good understandable English and I am sure you will be there to critisise me. Keep in mind that Parapsychology contains the UNEXPLAINED factors in life and Universe(s).
Have fun...:rolleyes:
Why always the asking for evidence? Afraid to lose control?
This question makes sense only if phrased as "Why always the asking for evidence? I won't give it because I'm afraid to lose authoritative control of it."
Too many Cartman's in the world unreasonably demanding respect for their Authoritay.
:)
Banshee
01-05-02, 07:26 PM
You like to watch 'Southpark', Mr G?:) I used to watch it, when I had a television...together with my son, who was real 'fond' of it. He had even his schoolbooks covered with paper of 'Southpark'.
I don't have problems with authority ( not in the way you mean it). Give me your evidence please...;)
James R
01-06-02, 01:29 AM
Banshee,
<i>Why do I have to believe in something? I know it for certain.</i>
How? Do you have a direct line to God, or Truth, or something?
<i>I am 41 years old and lived all those years from out what I FEEL is right. I studied even a long time to be sure I was sure.:)</i>
Fair enough. I respect your right to live your life however you please, provided it doesn't hurt others.
<i>I know the 'things' you humans want to explain so very strongly and scientists do their very best to give evidence for everything there is on Earth and in this Universe.</i>
See my question above. And are you claiming you aren't human? Are you special or something? Sounds more like you want to be in control than me.
<i>But even you have to admit that there are factors in life which DON'T have evidence and still it exists.:)</i>
Such as?
<i>As far as parallel Universes concern...I don't go into this with you. To much trouble.</i>
So let me summarise in a sentence for you what would come out of such a conversation: There is no definitive evidence for parallel universes - just speculation.
Banshee
01-06-02, 04:15 PM
I am just as human as you. But have another way of living and another view, if you want to call it that.:)
And yes, I have other contacts than the usual Earth bound contacts. So what? There goes your evidence, for you have to experience this yourself. And you can find this back in the Parapsychology Forum, for it is another subject.;)
As far as parallel Universes concern, I suggest you read 'Seth Speaks', written by Jane Roberts.
It is easier for you to understand than. If that is to much trouble for you, than open a thread about it or keep your mouth shut, for you don't know half of it.
The only thing you are interested in is accusing me of giving no evidence. I am so fed up with that everlasting evidence issue by you. Do some research yourself please.:)
Have fun and have a nice day...
(or do you prefer I write the whole issue down here? So you have nothing to do for it yourself? Is that the way you get your beloved evidence?!)
Brainz0
01-06-02, 07:51 PM
Here is a nice summary, up-to-the-minute, almost, of multiverse theories.
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=922202&CFID=509370&CFTOKEN=54686411
They are all rather speculative, but some are somewhat testable, and something of the sort may be necessary. Or maybe not.
James R
01-06-02, 09:21 PM
Banshee,
<i>The only thing you are interested in is accusing me of giving no evidence. I am so fed up with that everlasting evidence issue by you. Do some research yourself please.</i>
It just surprises me that you seem to have so little to back up some of the claims you make. It seems your say-so is supposed to be good enough. You have even claimed that certain things exist for which there is NO evidence, which seems a contradiction in terms to me.
<i>(or do you prefer I write the whole issue down here? So you have nothing to do for it yourself? Is that the way you get your beloved evidence?!)</i>
Traditionally, the onus is on the person making a claim to provide evidence that the claim is true. I am happy for you to claim whatever you like, but I see no reason not to ask for some objective indication of the truth of your claims. If you don't want to provide any evidence, that's your prerogative, but be aware that it tends to weaken your claims.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.