Of course it does have limitations (on Earth anyway). If the Sun went dark then entropy would wack all life on Earth. Can you demonstrate it? Unless it can be shown that the Sun is actually seeking energy vs. just blindly accepting interstellar payload, I don't see how such a study would produce much value. You're hitting alot of qualities of truth and it sounds like a clear definition of 'what' it is might not be visible to you yet. Morality only exists in the minds of men and has no importance beyond human-to-human relations. At best it's an abstraction of culture and genetically-coded human evaluation / judgment.
Fine piece of work.... with that line of thinking, if you keep going back in time, no wonder there is still a man on a thrown with a magic wand or scientifically.......... now you know why so many drown by walking the Planck. Try a new perspective as food for thinkin: If you tapped the surface of a flat pond the wave is concentrated at it highest point when the impact is made. You can see the wave get smaller as it moves over the pond. (basic entropy) Now i ask is the wave getting smaller or is the wave affecting more mass in time? Such that as you see the wave getting smaller, i see the energy affecting more mass (increasing is mass) Either way the energy is there forever, correct? So the perspective is quite relevant. many have and just didn't know it but here is one example basically em creating a potential between the plates...... see the moon.... ever notice she keeps her face pointed at us...... now you know why. all study is important until the work is finished. ie... in today's models... people use the word gravity all day long and who knows what 'it' is? Same with 'heat'...... the community shares just as you have; complacent and just accept 'not knowing' but the peer review goofs are so stubborn this can be noted in the same way Bohr and Einstein kept fighting it out. Funny part is most everyone uses bohr's atom but love einsteins relativity and folks do not comprehend they crash. Them 2 models don't mix and the physics community just doesn't share that truth Ok.... i see your opinion, and accept your view but in time, you may find otherwise, so by your effort i will also ask for you to be fair. That's one way to observe the experience of life but it seems to the whales our morality is important to far more than just 'human to human' relations. Look at what we have done to the environment. remember rule #2........? Life: purposed to continue (think of the pond, no matter which direction; the energy is still there) Then with choice, we have clear defininable principles (as mass and energy things) for us to live beyond the grave, by choice. Meaning; while alive we can 'cause' an existence of energy by choice and in effect since becoming the principle of choice.... 'live' in the contribution. To measure how you are doing simply follow the rules; good: supports life to continue bad: loss to the common (selfish; almost like a wave trying to jump out of the pond) Test the rules. Use your mind to examine each choice you make. And then if i was to say that 'all mass, all energy and all time' combine under a single mathematical script representing existence as a whole by name; who would it be? So from how life exists and what it is, to how the brain works and what gravity is; all can be understood. (mass can understand its existence) Perhaps one day a book can be written. Perhaps to be like an 'owners manual' for each kid born. Allowing each to comprehend life, 'good and bad' and how to live forever in the choices made; all wrapped around the understanding of light. (grounded in the universal language; math) then again.... perhaps i am just whacked and should get a life or have i created one?
Very good thinking Bishadi, I will say do not lose your flow of thought, Avery good exsplanation of existance, relative to conscious and the state of life in preception. DwayneD.L.Rabon
The man on a throne with the magic wand is the human psychological phenomenon of anthropomorphism. Objectively, there are processes built into reality (ex. back holes) that will perform a reset. Relevant to what? And none of this is new news. That's not a demonstration of gravity being entaglement. That is a demonstration of the net pressure of virtual particles. That was alot of words that didn't justify any value to your proposed study. I don't know what you have against clear concise dicussion, but you're jumping all over the place and turning your "chemistry" thread into cognitive entropy. It would be an opinion if there were no objective correspondence, but there certainly is in this case. It's nothing to be ashamed of. I would presume the majority of the world population doesn't know 'what' truth is. What I can tell you is that truth becomes much harder to recognize without that clarity of definition. The reason I asked you about it is because you began issuing pseudoscientific assertions and I suspected that some fuzziness surrounding what truth is was resulting in those assertions. It's still confined strictly to human to human relations. All biological life on Earth will cause harm to other biological life / the environment under various circumstances. Humans simply have the most destrctive potential and destruction can be beneficial. Destroying your competition for resources is beneficial. Destroying the infection in your body is beneficial (you certainly don't want to support the lives of those little buggers). Morality is derived from two evaluations humans perform on each other. "Are they mean?" and "are the valuable?". People judge each other this way and simulate judgment against themselves. That is morality... and it only exists in the minds of humans. If we screw up the environment for other life on Earth then those life forms are toast. If we screw it up for ourselves then we're toast. Nature will destroy all life on Earth in time. In 500 million years this planet is toast. As much as all life on Earth is there to persist, it is still in competition with all life on Earth and must also be adaptable to the environment. The rest of this for the most part sounds mostly like psudo-para nonsense.
Neither exist. are you familiar with casimir? noticed you removed the name in your quote. I suppose experimental evidence is not as important as the man created black holes.... not a single blip of data to support a black hole and yet, casimir is living experimental evidence sharing how energy shared between mass, increases the potential attraction, 'over time' does in fact exist! And you are questioning me? Wow! what ever floats your boat..... either you read and comprehend or you don't... not my fault 'paradigm shift' affects most all knowledge because the comprehension increases chemistry is a joke because of entropy...... but when the chips are down, Gibbs free energy saves the day.... which is pretty much proof of entropy being a guideline versus law. Pseudo - is current. (the existing is just 'accepted' pseudo) Esoteric - is the change (not well known, but the foundation of the paradigm shift) Pseudoscience - created dark matter/energy and balck holes..... and then built 10 billion dollar accelerators to find a particle to represent mass/gravity. Copernacus shared esoteric knowledge that was later found true. See the difference! perhaps look at the world prior to industry...... what you may see as civilized, to me is barbaric..... perhaps grow up..... i.e... this logic you are representing needs to be extinct! so you are using up my air! seems you have no value. still kind of instinctive in mind; you have been evaluated, and found 'less than.' that whole section is Oxymoronic ..... you suggest mankind judge on usefulness and then call it morality........... and in either case you suggested it 'only' exists in the minds of humans.... and then here we go again below what? So no matter what 'we're toast'............? and likewise the rest of you post is worthless dribble....
science and the understanding of life is beyond any desires of things i could die in a car accident and nothing with stop the progression at this point. enjoy...... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
When you believe something but there is clear evidence to the contrary then you have achieved delusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast12jan_1.htm Like I said, when you believe something but there is evidence to the contrary then you are sort of well... delusional: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/au...pace-theory-of-everything/?searchterm=casimir "But Casimir realized that the net pressure of all the virtual particles—the stuff of empty space—outside the plates should exert a minuscule force, a nudge from nothing that would push the plates together." Have you noticed that so far in this conversation (and I use the word loosely) that you have not supported any of your claims with evidence? Yes, and kay a red nude peeped under a yak Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. Pseudoscience is an exercise of the human imagination and emotion to produce fantasy labeled as "truth". Science on the other hand is an exercise of the human imagination and intellect to hypothesize and model around objective information. Something is only true when reality agrees and models tend to be very tentative as a result. See the difference? Pretending reality isn't what it is won't make it change or go away... but that's really a problem for you to work out yourself. We're not competing for air are we? Making my point self-evident sort of places you in agreement; although, I suspect that back-fire was unintentional. Correction, we judge on mean-ness (primary) and then value (secondary) and we simulate these judgments against ourselves. This is how our behavior evolved as cooperative social species. It's purely genetic. Morality is an abstraction of this where we have influences (culture, religion, law, upbringing, etc.). It's a lot of wiggle room but those abstractions are all derived from the same base. Either way, it's still confined to the minds of people. Some judge, some enforce, some do both; however, take humans out of the picture and there are no objectively moral or immoral objects or events. It's a possibility. Luckily humans might figure out some persistence solutions such as altering the planets orbit, populating other planets, etc. If we can do this then we will last much longer; however, there may be a point where the universe will reach a state that can no longer support biological life. Depending on how well we comprehend the universe and / or are able to modify it at the point will determine if we can persist beyond that point. Then I did a poor job of making a couple of points clear. I'll be more specific. As much as we harm the environment now, it is likely a necessary step for scientific progress (despite the risks) as in time the environment will naturally become inhospitable (i.e. it will harm us). The other point was that your bit about teaching children to live forever was clearly fantasy.
Do you see how Nasor explained why disorganized chemical reactions cause organisms to die? Can you explain why this doesn't answer your questions (if indeed it doesn't because I'm not sure what you're saying above)?
