It's always been a determining factor in society. Remember the Salem witch trials?
It's just been sort of reversed. It's now acceptable to deny god, where as before, you'd likely be deported or killed.
Yes religious persecution is not as severe as it once was but I do remember a time, like I said not too long agao, where people where not judged by their religious beliefs but by their actions as a person. Now a days it seems that those that have strong beliefs are looked down apon by some who do not and those that do not have strong beliefs are looked down upon by some that do. I personally feel that no one should be judged solely based on who they decide to worship oir if they decide to worship anyone at all.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
I'm not sure I follow that completely. It seems that looking at it this way would base origin on just one star, so that being the case the questions raised seem sort of silly. There is no "one" of anything, energy or God.
They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.
I can live with random,
quantum sounds fancified,
kirby still making vacuums?
I read this excellent explanation of quantum indeterminancy.
So basically superposition is any possible position between two eigenstates (stable states) and indeterminancy is our ability to know what position it is actually in.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.
I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I read this excellent explanation of quantum indeterminancy.
So basically superposition is any possible position between two eigenstates (stable states) and indeterminancy is our ability to know what position it is actually in.
I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.
i'm with ya on the big bang. didn't happen. at least not as "origin".
I believe that is simply called ignorance, or the unknown. There is no reason to call it God. We have words to describe what we don't know.
Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
Main Entry: ig·no·rant
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&nt
Function: adjective
1 a : destitute of knowledge or education <an ignorant society>; also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified <parents ignorant of modern mathematics> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence <ignorant errors>
2 : UNAWARE, UNINFORMED
- ig·no·rant·ly adverb
- ig·no·rant·ness noun
synonyms IGNORANT, ILLITERATE, UNLETTERED, UNTUTORED, UNLEARNED mean not having knowledge. IGNORANT may imply a general condition or it may apply to lack of knowledge or awareness of a particular thing <an ignorant fool> <ignorant of nuclear physics>. ILLITERATE applies to either an absolute or a relative inability to read and write <much of the population is still illiterate>. UNLETTERED implies ignorance of the knowledge gained by reading <an allusion meaningless to the unlettered>. UNTUTORED may imply lack of schooling in the arts and ways of civilization <strange monuments built by an untutored people>. UNLEARNED suggests ignorance of advanced subjects <poetry not for academics but for the unlearned masses>.
ignorant implies a lack of knowledge of that which is knowable. you are ignorant of math if we all know how to add and you do not. not knowing what was going on prior to the big bang does not make one ignorant, becos nobody has any clue what was going on prior to the big bang.
YOUR definition of god says it's unnecessary becos, again, you restrict your understanding to only the christian god. a giant ruler demanding worship. that is not the god i believe in. the god i believe in is this one, from your dictionary: "a person or thing of supreme value, the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit." if you've ever seen star wars, my god is the force... the inexplicable energy and order binding the universe together, that makes science operate the way it does (why does a rotating body pull objects towards it rather than push them away?). i call it god becos it's easier that way and helps me wrap my head around this nebulous and abstract principle underlying the universe.
Science doesn't have to work within time and space. It really doesn't have to work within anything. Except a particular method of discovery.
Take string theory which proposes 11 dimensions. That's not exactly within this universe. Or worm hole theories. I don't get this big bang theory. If we can only observe 17.2 billion light years, how do we know we are seeing everything? This expansion we are observing may just be localized to our quadrant, the result of a massive supernova. Einstein says time is like a fabric, in this weird U shape and planets cause dimples in time or some crap. Dude was smart, but some of his theories are a bit weird. Time and space are things which are fundamental and do not need to be explained. We have to make a solid distinction between what we know, what we don't know and what we don't know that we don't know. What is the point of thinking up something to place-hold that which we don't know? There are theories, but to put all faith in one, man, that just seems so absurd. Isn't it better just to say "I don't know". I don't know if the big bang really happened, and I don't know what happened before that, the origin of the universe or how non-organic matter becomes organic. It's not really applicable to our existence. There are a lot more important things to know than where we came from, like how we work.
that's a matter of perspective. some people find great joy in dissecting life and finding out how it works. others find much more joy in exploring why we are here. most of the great art in the world comes out of the latter camp. surely you can appreciate that, being on this board. i dont recall the last time pearl jam wrote a ripping good song that didn't involve emotion and subjective experience. me, i take great comfort in pondering the fact that there is this huge, incomprehensible universe that defies our ability to completely understand it. it makes me feel quite grateful to have gotten my tiny little slice of it, and it affects my day to day life immensely to have that gratitude. the thought that im nothing more than a windup toy ticking along kinda takes the spontaneous fun out of life. makes it seems boring and pointless... why bother to do anything if none of it matters and im not actually enjoying anything anyway?
ignorant implies a lack of knowledge of that which is knowable. you are ignorant of math if we all know how to add and you do not. not knowing what was going on prior to the big bang does not make one ignorant, becos nobody has any clue what was going on prior to the big bang.
YOUR definition of god says it's unnecessary becos, again, you restrict your understanding to only the christian god. a giant ruler demanding worship. that is not the god i believe in. the god i believe in is this one, from your dictionary: "a person or thing of supreme value, the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit." if you've ever seen star wars, my god is the force... the inexplicable energy and order binding the universe together, that makes science operate the way it does (why does a rotating body pull objects towards it rather than push them away?). i call it god becos it's easier that way and helps me wrap my head around this nebulous and abstract principle underlying the universe.
That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.
that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.
that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.
But that is a huge improvement over a creator- no matter how personalised that creator is or is not. A creator must be more complex then what is created- because the creator contains all of the information of that which is created.
So you can have some form of physical existence being the infinite norm (ie- the universe right now... before that, who knows), or you can introduce another entire concept, which is more complicated then physical existence, to try and explain that physical existence.
And if you are willing to ignore the question of where did god come from by saying he exists outside of time, why not extend that courtesy to the pre-universe state of physical existence, and thus eliminate the need for god?
After all, Einstein has shown that time is in fact a dimension of the current universe, and that time was created with the universe. So perhaps our universe is born from a timeless base. This whole idea of a universe being born from nothing is incorrect- I am unaware of any scientific explanation of the origins of the universe that proposes a free universe- or a universe being created out of nothing.
i dont think im doing a good job explaining god. im not making excuses for god that i will not extend to the universe, to me, they are essentially indistinguishable. god is simply a concept that helps me attempt to understand the unknowable, the impossibly abstract pieces of the puzzle that science itself admits it cannot understand. it is like the remainder, the loose ends. they fall under this concept and give me a sense of perspective that helps me to feel grounded when pondering the seemingly impossible odds that id be sitting here in this tiny little corner of a vast and incomprehensible universe.
and i see no reason to think that is a "huge improvement" over god (i dont really consider god The Creator). to me, it seems at best on equal footing. neither really advances any cause. they have value only in the subjective experience of the individual. some people are fine saying "we dont know, so let's talk about other things." those people make great scientists. other say "im not sure but i feel something about it" and those people tend to make great artists. we need both.
i dont drink. and you dont have a point. i figured as much. ill let you play with yourself, sorry to have interrupted your witty banter.
You are guided, yet looking for answers; the beautiful waterfall has a beginning and an end, a top and a bottom, yet the organism that makes it so is not of the same?
I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.
You misunderstand. I was talking about the energy locked within its gravitational field. If you calculated it, you would find it's negative. So, it's speculated the total energy of the system may be zero.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You misunderstand. I was talking about the energy locked within its gravitational field. If you calculated it, you would find it's negative. So, it's speculated the total energy of the system may be zero.
i'm with ya on the big bang. didn't happen. at least not as "origin".
I think a lot of people have the wrong notion of the Big Bang, as there is no physical/cosmological claim that the Big Bang theory induces that the universe began at the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory is most simply stated a theory that claims how the universe overall evolves from a denser, hotter and smaller (scale factor) state to one which is cooler, less dense and bigger, and the same theory from which we can conclude that such was the case (general relativity) at the same time disallows us to speak of a 'begin' since that very theory is known to collapse at that point.
The superstring theory predicts that our universe started out as a ten-dimensional universe, which was unstable and collapsed violently down to four dimensions & this event, in turn, created the original big bang.
Inflation is already part of the understanding of why and how the Big Bang takes place, and has made testable predictions which match observations.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I think a lot of people have the wrong notion of the Big Bang, as there is no physical/cosmological claim that the Big Bang theory induces that the universe began at the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory is most simply stated a theory that claims how the universe overall evolves from a denser, hotter and smaller (scale factor) state to one which is cooler, less dense and bigger, and the same theory from which we can conclude that such was the case (general relativity) at the same time disallows us to speak of a 'begin' since that very theory is known to collapse at that point.
The superstring theory predicts that our universe started out as a ten-dimensional universe, which was unstable and collapsed violently down to four dimensions & this event, in turn, created the original big bang.
Inflation is already part of the understanding of why and how the Big Bang takes place, and has made testable predictions which match observations.
You and that damn "superstring" of which I know nothing about.
As fascinating as this all may be, isn't it a little odd that in our 3-dimensional existence that we can even be talking about 10 (or any other number of) dimensions?
Good info there on the big bang, thanks, i didn't know that.
You and that damn "superstring" of which I know nothing about.
As fascinating as this all may be, isn't it a little odd that in our 3-dimensional existence that we can even be talking about 10 (or any other number of) dimensions?
Good info there on the big bang, thanks, i didn't know that.
Briane Greene's "The Elegant Universe" on video.google explains string theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.
Just shows how misleading forums are.
Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.
Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.
Aww Lucy, are you being accused of condescension and a superiority complex now? Welcome to the club.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.
well i do happen to reflect on it, though i dont see why one would suddenly be more respectable than another. i just watched jesus camp the other day, and while it was one of the scariest fucking movies i've ever seen, i certainly did not think it represents all religions. im quite sorry you've had some hard knocks, im a graduate of that school myself, but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous. the vast majority of religious people couldn't really be bothered to persecute anyone. the few who do just happen to be a hell of a lot louder about it.
well i do happen to reflect on it, though i dont see why one would suddenly be more respectable than another. i just watched jesus camp the other day, and while it was one of the scariest fucking movies i've ever seen, i certainly did not think it represents all religions. im quite sorry you've had some hard knocks, im a graduate of that school myself, but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous. the vast majority of religious people couldn't really be bothered to persecute anyone. the few who do just happen to be a hell of a lot louder about it.
Should I point out the potential to interpet this as condescending? Or are you ready to accept that not all things are as they seem. Firstly I don't remember seeing Lucy say what you claim Lucy said, much like you put words in my mouth. You've referred to her ideas as "absolutely ridiculous" which is pretty much what you've said I do as condescending.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Should I point out the potential to interpet this as condescending? Or are you ready to accept that not all things are as they seem. Firstly I don't remember seeing Lucy say what you claim Lucy said, much like you put words in my mouth. You've referred to her ideas as "absolutely ridiculous" which is pretty much what you've said I do as condescending.
lucy used those exact words in post #80. care to revise those statements?
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous
I don't see the use of the word "evil" in Lucy's post. I actually interpreted Lucy's statement as jest, but I guess you get what you expect when your reading text. No tone to hone, to get to the bone of the meaning, not which you apply as your own. Relax, sit back, and suck a tic-tac while you cut people slack and interpret with the bennefit of doubt before talking crap.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That's pretty interesting. Either you are a Christian who has decided to define God by your own terms, which kind of invalidates the whole idea, or you are a religion of one. Reading this board, that seems to be a pretty common theme though. A lot of people are saying that the nasty, bad history Christian "God" is not their God, their's is different.
I thought the point of religion was to band together to persecute the crap out of anyone who didn't believe the same things you did. And boy, are you so gonna be in trouble on Judgement Day !!
I am content to be totally insignificant without any gods. Looking at the Hubble photos, even stars and whole galaxies are just ephemeral grains of dust in the big picture.
should not God be able to be defined in an individual's terms? is not the relationship between Man and God a personal one of introspection, revelation and redemption?
as for me, for want of a better word, i am my own God. but then again i am not a christian.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Comments
Yes religious persecution is not as severe as it once was but I do remember a time, like I said not too long agao, where people where not judged by their religious beliefs but by their actions as a person. Now a days it seems that those that have strong beliefs are looked down apon by some who do not and those that do not have strong beliefs are looked down upon by some that do. I personally feel that no one should be judged solely based on who they decide to worship oir if they decide to worship anyone at all.
They were simply using a star as an example. In a larger scale, it appears that empirically the total energy of the universe is close to zero. Which leads us to inflation theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_theory . What if the universe was created as a 'vacuum fluctuation', a random quantum leap from the vacuum into a full fledged universe? Certainly, not all the answers are in yet and I'm sure there are exciting things to come as superstring research progresses.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I can live with random,
quantum sounds fancified,
kirby still making vacuums?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
So basically superposition is any possible position between two eigenstates (stable states) and indeterminancy is our ability to know what position it is actually in.
Full explanation with diagram of experiments here
http://skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=6284
I'm a bit skeptical of this idea that a star begins with zero energy. My understanding of Big Bang is that it began as a massive cloud of hydrogen atoms.
I suppose I'm flbbergusted.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i'm with ya on the big bang. didn't happen. at least not as "origin".
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
ignorant implies a lack of knowledge of that which is knowable. you are ignorant of math if we all know how to add and you do not. not knowing what was going on prior to the big bang does not make one ignorant, becos nobody has any clue what was going on prior to the big bang.
YOUR definition of god says it's unnecessary becos, again, you restrict your understanding to only the christian god. a giant ruler demanding worship. that is not the god i believe in. the god i believe in is this one, from your dictionary: "a person or thing of supreme value, the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit." if you've ever seen star wars, my god is the force... the inexplicable energy and order binding the universe together, that makes science operate the way it does (why does a rotating body pull objects towards it rather than push them away?). i call it god becos it's easier that way and helps me wrap my head around this nebulous and abstract principle underlying the universe.
that's a matter of perspective. some people find great joy in dissecting life and finding out how it works. others find much more joy in exploring why we are here. most of the great art in the world comes out of the latter camp. surely you can appreciate that, being on this board. i dont recall the last time pearl jam wrote a ripping good song that didn't involve emotion and subjective experience. me, i take great comfort in pondering the fact that there is this huge, incomprehensible universe that defies our ability to completely understand it. it makes me feel quite grateful to have gotten my tiny little slice of it, and it affects my day to day life immensely to have that gratitude. the thought that im nothing more than a windup toy ticking along kinda takes the spontaneous fun out of life. makes it seems boring and pointless... why bother to do anything if none of it matters and im not actually enjoying anything anyway?
It doesn't take much to be an "intellect".
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
that's kinda what my last point said. and im not qualified to talk about religion. religion is a social construct. different religions serve different purposes. though i still think your guess at the point of religion is way off, and id guess you're probly still in your teens or conor oberst based on your juvenile superiority complex. anyway, religion of one might be more appropriate. i dont think of it as religion at all though. to me, it is simply spirituality. the awareness and concern to my soul, that indefinable part of each one of us that makes us all different from each other.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i dont think im doing a good job explaining god. im not making excuses for god that i will not extend to the universe, to me, they are essentially indistinguishable. god is simply a concept that helps me attempt to understand the unknowable, the impossibly abstract pieces of the puzzle that science itself admits it cannot understand. it is like the remainder, the loose ends. they fall under this concept and give me a sense of perspective that helps me to feel grounded when pondering the seemingly impossible odds that id be sitting here in this tiny little corner of a vast and incomprehensible universe.
and i see no reason to think that is a "huge improvement" over god (i dont really consider god The Creator). to me, it seems at best on equal footing. neither really advances any cause. they have value only in the subjective experience of the individual. some people are fine saying "we dont know, so let's talk about other things." those people make great scientists. other say "im not sure but i feel something about it" and those people tend to make great artists. we need both.
what are the same?
You and me getting drunk on the weekend?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
i dont drink. and you dont have a point. i figured as much. ill let you play with yourself, sorry to have interrupted your witty banter.
You are guided, yet looking for answers; the beautiful waterfall has a beginning and an end, a top and a bottom, yet the organism that makes it so is not of the same?
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
You misunderstand. I was talking about the energy locked within its gravitational field. If you calculated it, you would find it's negative. So, it's speculated the total energy of the system may be zero.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
"locked".
Now there's an Adam waiting to bust loose.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I think a lot of people have the wrong notion of the Big Bang, as there is no physical/cosmological claim that the Big Bang theory induces that the universe began at the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory is most simply stated a theory that claims how the universe overall evolves from a denser, hotter and smaller (scale factor) state to one which is cooler, less dense and bigger, and the same theory from which we can conclude that such was the case (general relativity) at the same time disallows us to speak of a 'begin' since that very theory is known to collapse at that point.
The superstring theory predicts that our universe started out as a ten-dimensional universe, which was unstable and collapsed violently down to four dimensions & this event, in turn, created the original big bang.
Inflation is already part of the understanding of why and how the Big Bang takes place, and has made testable predictions which match observations.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
punny, gue
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You and that damn "superstring" of which I know nothing about.
As fascinating as this all may be, isn't it a little odd that in our 3-dimensional existence that we can even be talking about 10 (or any other number of) dimensions?
Good info there on the big bang, thanks, i didn't know that.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Briane Greene's "The Elegant Universe" on video.google explains string theory.
Just shows how misleading forums are.
Actually, I'm 43 with a pretty solid professional education, as well as a thrashing from the School of Hard Knocks. I know enough to know I don't know much at all, but if you don't like my opinions or feel that you need to put me down for having some, maybe that says more about you than about me.
I don't have a juvenile superiority complex. I'm not sure if it was in that edited quote or another where I said, "I'm not interested in being wrong or right, just throwing ideas around".
I do like being flippant though, and I can't always be bothered to long story stuff.
I don't think that my take on religion is too far off at all, though having said that, I am not necessarily accusing you of belonging to one.
Individual spiritualism is much more respectable to me than organised religion, and I may even possess it, though I don't really reflect on it much.
Aww Lucy, are you being accused of condescension and a superiority complex now? Welcome to the club.
well i do happen to reflect on it, though i dont see why one would suddenly be more respectable than another. i just watched jesus camp the other day, and while it was one of the scariest fucking movies i've ever seen, i certainly did not think it represents all religions. im quite sorry you've had some hard knocks, im a graduate of that school myself, but i still think your sweeping generalization that religions are all evil and their defining trait is to band together to persecute others is absolutely ridiculous. the vast majority of religious people couldn't really be bothered to persecute anyone. the few who do just happen to be a hell of a lot louder about it.
Should I point out the potential to interpet this as condescending? Or are you ready to accept that not all things are as they seem. Firstly I don't remember seeing Lucy say what you claim Lucy said, much like you put words in my mouth. You've referred to her ideas as "absolutely ridiculous" which is pretty much what you've said I do as condescending.
lucy used those exact words in post #80. care to revise those statements?
I don't see the use of the word "evil" in Lucy's post. I actually interpreted Lucy's statement as jest, but I guess you get what you expect when your reading text. No tone to hone, to get to the bone of the meaning, not which you apply as your own. Relax, sit back, and suck a tic-tac while you cut people slack and interpret with the bennefit of doubt before talking crap.
should not God be able to be defined in an individual's terms? is not the relationship between Man and God a personal one of introspection, revelation and redemption?
as for me, for want of a better word, i am my own God. but then again i am not a christian.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say