I think the big bang does noting to explain the creation of the universe at all. It's complete bunk.
All it does is account for all that we can observe as far out as we can look with the instruments we have at this technology level.
To think there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the physical space that surrounds us is utterly and totally rediculous in the same way it was once thought that everything revolved around the earth by the small religious minds of the time.
It also defies the notion of infinity. The big bang concept is a finite concept and quantification of space that has borders.
True we are living in the remnants of a immensely massive supernova, but to think it accounts for everything out there is again the old world concepts of the mind of man interfering with reality.
Religion is a method to keep man from going insane trying to comprehend the raw reality of our physical circumstance(s) as we scream along through space becoming increasingly aware or our surroundings. It's like a soother to a baby in a way. Or in most cases just learned behavior from childhood.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I think the big bang does noting to explain the creation of the universe at all. It's complete bunk.
All it does is account for all that we can observe as far out as we can look with the instruments we have at this technology level.
To think there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the physical space that surrounds us is utterly and totally rediculous in the same way it was once thought that everything revolved around the earth by the small religious minds of the time.
It also defies the notion of infinity. The big bang concept is a finite concept and quantification of space that has borders.
True we are living in the remnants of a immensely massive supernova, but to think it accounts for everything out there is again the old world concepts of the mind of man interfering with reality.
Religion is a method to keep man from going insane trying to comprehend the raw reality of our physical circumstance(s) as we scream along through space becoming increasingly aware or our surroundings. It's like a soother to a baby in a way. Or in most cases just learned behavior from childhood.
There are theories to explain pre-Big Bang time which involve an infinite number of universes which collide periodically releasing and infinite amount of energy which we equate with the begining of our universe. I guess I would ask why there needs to have been a start and an end-isn't it possible that there never was one despite how difficult that may be for us to comprehend?
You nailed it there I think. Scientific theories are ususally more founded than mere guesswork and loose speculation, and are based on a number of observances, some of which one feel (note the word I used there) are so secure as to call facts. Fact is generally a word used far too often for my tastes.
Still, I usually put more merit in a scientifically tested theory, than untested theories.
Peace
Dan
My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.
There are theories to explain pre-Big Bang time which involve an infinite number of universes which collide periodically releasing and infinite amount of energy which we equate with the begining of our universe. I guess I would ask why there needs to have been a start and an end-isn't it possible that there never was one despite how difficult that may be for us to comprehend?
We are here therefore something always was "here"
An empty universe in order to be truly empty can never be anything but empty, otherwise is was not empty space to begin with in the first place.
I found a great web page explaining this concept in depth a while back.
Basically two scenarios exist. Something was always here, or nothing was always here. Very simple.
Something cannot just appear from out of nowhere like a spark or big bang because that spark requires space and origin from somewhere, yet we are talking about the one and same everywhere so it is one and the same place. Something cannot come from somewhere when that somewhere is everywhere.
We are here so that proves that the universe has always been here, and just exists, and will continue on as such....forever.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
It's not, read about it. I'm sorry if I get frustrated by this, but honestly if you so much as look on wikipedia you will find that is garbage.
Halton Arp is a very well known cosmologist who does not agree with Big Bang theory. There are dozens of cosmologists that don't agree with Big Bang. I can link you a documentary full of cosmologists that disagree with Big Bang theory. I'm sickened by the assumptions you people constantly make.
Scientific theory is a theory about facts, hypothesis is a means to test the theory. Scientific theory is much more solid than a guess, but it hardly translates to fact.
and i can link you to writings by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings who are regarded as the greatest modern scientists of all time that say the big bang did happen. I get sickened where people give their opinion that things that are regarded as scientific fact in the science community is wrong when there is so much more evidence to support the big bang then to disprove it. If you are sick of us people making assumptions then people like you need to look in the mirror. You are making more assumptions since there is less fact to say the big bang didn't happen.
Also, if you look on wikipedia you will find that the big bang is correct. You can find any opinion on wikipedia so that means nothing.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
Saying the big bang explains the entire universe is like saying a spark flying out of the fire is the whole fire.
Preposterous...and stupidity, regardless of whatever academic credentials.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.
Indeed, ideally. But it's a limited scope of science that fall under the "retestable in experiment" category. And one experiment provides an observance, not a theory. The number of testable observances is theorized into a structure, and in time can become comprehensive theories.
They're theories, but with a bit more weighty backing than "I think". And many of them are useful practically. That does not mean that they have it nailed, it means they are correct enough for the purposes in this time and place.
But semantics really. I think we agree on what science is.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Hey guys, this isn't really about the big bang theory, but rather the expansion of the Earth............I am bored here at work and found this video. It looks to have been made in 2000, so some of you may have seen it before. I haven't really looked into this theory in detail, but it's an interesting video. What are your thoughts? The main piece of information I took from it was the claim that scientists disregard these facts because it would disprove the last 100 years of geographical science (plate techtonics, etc)..........Is it possible that scientists (like the religious) disregard information in order to stand by their beliefs and if so.......how much science, is based on pure speculation instead of evidence? If we can't even figure out the Earth, how can we even begin to explain the origin of the universe (again, this is hypothetical, seeing as how I haven't really deaply looked into the sources of the video). It just got me thinking......... http://www.vidipedia.org/Special:Video/462
Hey guys, this isn't really about the big bang theory, but rather the expansion of the Earth............I am bored here at work and found this video. It looks to have been made in 2000, so some of you may have seen it before. I haven't really looked into this theory in detail, but it's an interesting video. What are your thoughts? The main piece of information I took from it was the claim that scientists disregard these facts because it would disprove the last 100 years of geographical science (plate techtonics, etc)..........Is it possible that scientists (like the religious) disregard information in order to stand by their beliefs and if so.......how much science, is based on pure speculation instead of evidence? If we can't even figure out the Earth, how can we even begin to explain the origin of the universe (again, this is hypothetical, seeing as how I haven't really deaply looked into the sources of the video). It just got me thinking......... http://www.vidipedia.org/Special:Video/462
I am totally with you in theory my friend. I see this all the time. What we uncover scientifically in 500 years won't come about because new reality systems reveal themselves; what will come about will be due to human awareness, comprehension, etc evolving past the limits and preconceptions that cloud the current human--including scientist--view. Dogmatic science like dogmatic religion distorts reality just as much. Unfortunately, modern western society is based upon scientism, and not real science. When we discovered what science could do for us, we used it in it's own realm, and then beyond in realms it cannot assess, thusly distorting aspects of life that scientific method cannot understand.. In our blindness, we came to decide that if science can't address and uncover it, it doesn't exist, effectively collapsing the fullness of everything. We need only look about at the blatant imbalance surrounding us amidst our great technology to see the fallout.
This is the stuff of quantum philosophy--how we alter any experiment we approach depending on what we are looking to find. Until scientism is willing to accept it's blindness and it's biases, we will keep perpetuating this imbalance, just like imbalanced religion. Two sides of the same coin, my friend. It's the shadow side of human nature.
(I haven't watched the video--I'm going by what you are saying in your post.)
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.
A lot of theory is now only tested in theoretical models. These theories are only as valid as the models. Global Climate Change is pretty accepted theory even though there has never been an accurate climate model developed.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
This is the stuff of quantum philosophy--how we alter any experiment we approach depending on what we are looking to find. Until scientism is willing to accept it's blindness and it's biases, we will keep perpetuating this imbalance, just like imbalanced religion. Two sides of the same coin, my friend. It's the shadow side of human nature.
Excellent post. One of the most fascinating things I ever learned is that some matter only seems to exist when we look for it. Wierd, fascinating and awesome all at the same time. Kinda like 'if a tree falls in a forest when no one is around does it make a sound' but at the quantum physics level.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Excellent post. One of the most fascinating things I ever learned is that some matter only seems to exist when we look for it. Wierd, fascinating and awesome all at the same time. Kinda like 'if a tree falls in a forest when no one is around does it make a sound' but at the quantum physics level.
Yes! The tree falling in the forest has different ramifications looking through quantum physics paradigms.
It happens on a physical level in quantum physics, and then philosophically we can trace the same principle in our environment. If a scientist looks to find something in an experiment, or looks to not find something, they will set things up to influence an outcome towards what they are expecting based on unconscious forces they don't realize are there. Until the observer effect is widely acknowledged and prepared for, we will continue personally influencing what we falsely tell ourselves is 'objective'. Everything is relative and the observer is relative to the experiment.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Yes! The tree falling in the forest has different ramifications looking through quantum physics paradigms.
It happens on a physical level in quantum physics, and then philosophically we can trace the same principle in our environment. If a scientist looks to find something in an experiment, or looks to not find something, they will set things up to influence an outcome towards what they are expecting based on unconscious forces they don't realize are there. Until the observer effect is widely acknowledged and prepared for, we will continue personally influencing what we falsely tell ourselves is 'objective'. Everything is relative and the observer is relative to the experiment.
Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.
Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
Scientific theory really got bastardized with the advent of computer modelling. Theories were then based not on observances but predicted observances based on the model. Accuarcy of the model used is not rally taken into account when judging the merit of the theory.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Scientific theories are different from the regular use of the word theory in that they don't really describe something as a guess. The theory of gravity is an example of a scientific theory.
Yes, they describe the framework we give to the facts. A framework includes interpretation which depends on the influence of the person doing the interpretation or theory construction. Or depending on the going level of awareness in the field at that time. Such variables are independent of "truth" and there is room for distortion. Different perspectives have different frameworks. That is why old frameworks become expanded upon as we evolve.
Basically the theory is the structure that supports the practical applications. The practical applications are what we can deem as "real" and testable. Math is as made up as "God" is. We have derived numerous practical applications for math. And when the old structures no long meet all of our needs, we conceive of new structures--we invent new math. In a similar way, God, or your spiritual icon of choice, is what people use to conceptualize the practical outcomes that are understood on a more abstract, yet practical level.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.
Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:
Damn, this started me thinking about a recent conference I was at. One of the speakers talked briefly about an experiement done (by a Japanese scientist if I remember right). Anyways, the experiment was done to see if molecules are changed depending on our emotional states as we look at them. It turned out that they did, which brought up a lot of questions regarding the mind effecting the body and even the outside world.........I don't have time to find a link right now because I'm about to get off work. Try doing a search for "molecules of emotion" maybe.........I'll try to find something later as well. It was some very interesting research that brought to question some of the fundamentals of our current understanding of physics.
Have you seen either of the "What the Bleep" movies? If not, you might be interested in them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:
The James Randi Educational Foundation offered Dr. Emoto one million dollars to reproduce his results in a controlled double-blind experiment. Emoto hasn't accepted the challenge. http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html
You can also play... Dr. Emoto's... "cloud-vanishing game"
(11) Play the “cloud- vanishing game”
The clouds in the sky wish easily with your thoughts. Instruction is as follows:
a) Believe firmly that the cloud will vanish, without any trace of doubt
b) Relax. If you have too much tension, your energy will not fly effectively.
c) Imagine that your energy laser beam emits straight from your heart to the cloud.
d) Say “The cloud has vanished”, in past tense.
e) And simultaneously, say thank you in a past tense tone to your energy.Following the above instruction, clouds in the sky will vanish without exception
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 still think Quantum Mechanics is entirely new territory and it's too early to make any claims about philosophical implications. It could be that it's deterministic or probabilistic. But I still think there is a classical limit where two objects consisting of atomic consitency such as a human and a baseball, interact with classical newtonian physics. I don't see any reason to believe that our minds could affect the probable outcome of quantum mechanics.
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 still think Quantum Mechanics is entirely new territory and it's too early to make any claims about philosophical implications. It could be that it's deterministic or probabilistic. But I still think there is a classical limit where two objects consisting of atomic consitency such as a human and a baseball, interact with classical newtonian physics. I don't see any reason to believe that our minds could affect the probable outcome of quantum mechanics.
It's called complementarity and quantum physics fully embraces this principle. The observer alters the experiment. This principle is not debated.
Quantum mechanics discovered some new principles that changed the face of science over 100 years ago. These concepts stretch our very perceptions and "Man's mind, stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimension". As we stretch our philosophical parameters we stretch our ability to perceive new discovery. And through increased perception, we can see old discovery in new light that changes the very scope of our knowledge. It's very exciting.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Is that Dr. Masaru Emoto, the guy with the water crystals? I don't know a lot about him except what I saw in the movie "What the Bleep" but the idea was fascinating. Here's a link:
Yes, that was exactly what I was refering to, thank you There are so many things that we don't understand yet! Maybe if we all stopped thinking negatively about global warming the earth would heal itself, lol.
Yes, that was exactly what I was refering to, thank you There are so many things that we don't understand yet!
You completely hit the nail on the head. We are compelled to explain things as best we can, and really, all we can do is understand what we know now, as best we can, which is a far cry from saying that science has absolute truths. This is why science is a great tool, but to limit myself to what science believes, well, I would still be limiting myself.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
thanks for the links, this is some interesting stuff.
Seeing visions of falling up somehow.
Pensacola '94 New Orleans '95 Birmingham '98 New Orleans '00 New Orleans '03 Tampa '08 New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest Fenway Park '18 St. Louis '22
The James Randi Educational Foundation offered Dr. Emoto one million dollars to reproduce his results in a controlled double-blind experiment. Emoto hasn't accepted the challenge. http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html
It's interesting, PJPOWER, how your theory is playing out in this thread alone.
The theory that non-believers may be just as biased as believers, and I'm not sure if you said this part, but in case you did not, I'll add it in as well: the position one takes determines the outcome of the conclusion that one receives.
For example, referring to Mr. Emoto and his water crystals, some choose to believe him, some choose to believe he's not for real. All I know is that he's presented a case and shown some results. And yet, as a counter argument, in the link provided by Ahnimus, the article points out that Mr. Emoto is not a traditional scientist and yet Mr Emoto doesn't claim to be one. The article uses much mockery, and more "proof-of-what-you-can't-prove: that-being-a-negative", saying he did not provide double blind tests. While a good deal of attempted discrediting went on, nothing at all was proven contrary to Mr. Emoto's assertions. Unfortunately the argument in the link, coming from the the old "you-can't-prove-a-negative" view is ineffective in trying to prove a negative. While it's entirely ineffective on it's own, because in case I've not said this enough: you can't prove a negative, it IS effective with it's use of "scientism" and scientific terms, couched in before-mentioned mockery, in convincing people they are seeing the scientific view. So while it's an inaccurate method, it sure is an effective one in swaying "logical" people in a "logical society" to a "socially acceptable" point of view, whether inaccurate or not.
It reminds me of the technique of cloud-busting pertaining to the practise of inaccurate skeptism and scientism taken as truth.
a)You must have a blind faith that Mr. Emoto is going to be revealed as a fraud, since an "authority" is implying such.
b)Relax: if you actually exercise your own brain muscle, you must face the reality that mockery aside, alternate views stand until they are proven otherwise. And hence you ruin the scientism effect.
c)Imagine that all things in science including spinoffs such as scientism and scientific words used are more valid than the truth.
d)Say to yourself that the "authoritarian" and mocking pseudo-logical voice is valid enough times, and you will receive your "truth".
e)And in the past tense, thank scientism for your sense of egoistically holding the market on what we must admit we don't yet understand.
The cool thing about the cloud-busting phenomena, similar to the complementarity principle in quantum physics is that it demonstrates how depending on how we look at things, we will end up with our personal worldview being validated in our perception.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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
And people try to pass off their skepticism as a valid alternative to an assertion all the time. I'd likewise like to see those skeptics bust a chair with their skepticism....or better yet, actually prove what you cannot prove: a negative argument. Oh, but that's right, they are not trying to disprove an argument, they are trying rather to discredit someone with public humiliation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
And people try to pass off their skepticism as a valid alternative to an assertion all the time. I'd likewise like to see those skeptics bust a chair with their skepticism....or better yet, actually prove what you cannot prove: a negative argument. Oh, but that's right, they are not trying to disprove an argument, they are trying rather to discredit someone with public humiliation.
No, the skeptics are just asking for proof to begin with. Dr. Tilly from the "What the BLEEP do we know?" movie is also a skeptic of Dr. Emoto's work.
The burden of disproof is not on the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Dr. Emoto to reproduce his experiments in a controlled environment, provide instructions to reproduce his results and open up his research for peer review. He has done nothing of the sort. He is not a scientists, and his results are not scientific.
I mean, if you are going to just believe anything, look up vortexes and laylines, Evlis isn't dead, Aliens from Cyphertron are anal probing people, Bigfoot is a being of superior intellect from an alternate reality that opens a portal to our universe to walk around in the woods naked, psychics really do read minds - even when the results are inconclusive, and the world is ruled by an elite group called the Illuminati.
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
No, the skeptics are just asking for proof to begin with. Dr. Tilly from the "What the BLEEP do we know?" movie is also a skeptic of Dr. Emoto's work.
The burden of disproof is not on the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Dr. Emoto to reproduce his experiments in a controlled environment, provide instructions to reproduce his results and open up his research for peer review. He has done nothing of the sort. He is not a scientists, and his results are not scientific.
I mean, if you are going to just believe anything, look up vortexes and laylines, Evlis isn't dead, Aliens from Cyphertron are anal probing people, Bigfoot is a being of superior intellect from an alternate reality that opens a portal to our universe to walk around in the woods naked, psychics really do read minds - even when the results are inconclusive, and the world is ruled by an elite group called the Illuminati.
Ahnimus, I'm all for real skepticism. I am for something not being considered scientifically proven until it meets the approval of scientific methods within the science community. To meet this standard, there is not room for mockery, and public humiliation. I'm not a fan of parading out the old social ostracization in the guise of skepticism. I prefer real skepticism. Social ostracization methods are unacceptable, imo because they give science--which is not to be confused as scientism--a bad name. People can disbelieve what they want, but when they try to trump another's belief with their own belief, using underhanded methods, I take issue.
Mr. Emoto is not under any pressure to do anything within the parameters of the scientific community, anymore than I am. Or anymore than you are held to the tenets of the Catholic religion. He can choose to do whatever he wants. If that bothers you and you think an appropriate response is to react with scientism, ostracization, public shaming, and maybe a red letter of shame pinned to him, due to your own feelings, that is not about Mr. Emoto. Just know that your scientism cannot trump pseudo-science.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
All it does is account for all that we can observe as far out as we can look with the instruments we have at this technology level.
To think there is nothing beyond what we can observe in the physical space that surrounds us is utterly and totally rediculous in the same way it was once thought that everything revolved around the earth by the small religious minds of the time.
It also defies the notion of infinity. The big bang concept is a finite concept and quantification of space that has borders.
True we are living in the remnants of a immensely massive supernova, but to think it accounts for everything out there is again the old world concepts of the mind of man interfering with reality.
Religion is a method to keep man from going insane trying to comprehend the raw reality of our physical circumstance(s) as we scream along through space becoming increasingly aware or our surroundings. It's like a soother to a baby in a way. Or in most cases just learned behavior from childhood.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
There are theories to explain pre-Big Bang time which involve an infinite number of universes which collide periodically releasing and infinite amount of energy which we equate with the begining of our universe. I guess I would ask why there needs to have been a start and an end-isn't it possible that there never was one despite how difficult that may be for us to comprehend?
My two cents. A scientific theory is based on observation or experiment which is repeatable and verfiable many times. Scientific theories can't be proven only falsified in a purely philosophical interpreation but for all intents and purpose they are correct.
We are here therefore something always was "here"
An empty universe in order to be truly empty can never be anything but empty, otherwise is was not empty space to begin with in the first place.
I found a great web page explaining this concept in depth a while back.
Basically two scenarios exist. Something was always here, or nothing was always here. Very simple.
Something cannot just appear from out of nowhere like a spark or big bang because that spark requires space and origin from somewhere, yet we are talking about the one and same everywhere so it is one and the same place. Something cannot come from somewhere when that somewhere is everywhere.
We are here so that proves that the universe has always been here, and just exists, and will continue on as such....forever.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
and i can link you to writings by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawkings who are regarded as the greatest modern scientists of all time that say the big bang did happen. I get sickened where people give their opinion that things that are regarded as scientific fact in the science community is wrong when there is so much more evidence to support the big bang then to disprove it. If you are sick of us people making assumptions then people like you need to look in the mirror. You are making more assumptions since there is less fact to say the big bang didn't happen.
Also, if you look on wikipedia you will find that the big bang is correct. You can find any opinion on wikipedia so that means nothing.
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
Preposterous...and stupidity, regardless of whatever academic credentials.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
They're theories, but with a bit more weighty backing than "I think". And many of them are useful practically. That does not mean that they have it nailed, it means they are correct enough for the purposes in this time and place.
But semantics really. I think we agree on what science is.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
http://www.vidipedia.org/Special:Video/462
This is the stuff of quantum philosophy--how we alter any experiment we approach depending on what we are looking to find. Until scientism is willing to accept it's blindness and it's biases, we will keep perpetuating this imbalance, just like imbalanced religion. Two sides of the same coin, my friend. It's the shadow side of human nature.
(I haven't watched the video--I'm going by what you are saying in your post.)
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It happens on a physical level in quantum physics, and then philosophically we can trace the same principle in our environment. If a scientist looks to find something in an experiment, or looks to not find something, they will set things up to influence an outcome towards what they are expecting based on unconscious forces they don't realize are there. Until the observer effect is widely acknowledged and prepared for, we will continue personally influencing what we falsely tell ourselves is 'objective'. Everything is relative and the observer is relative to the experiment.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Basically the theory is the structure that supports the practical applications. The practical applications are what we can deem as "real" and testable. Math is as made up as "God" is. We have derived numerous practical applications for math. And when the old structures no long meet all of our needs, we conceive of new structures--we invent new math. In a similar way, God, or your spiritual icon of choice, is what people use to conceptualize the practical outcomes that are understood on a more abstract, yet practical level.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The James Randi Educational Foundation offered Dr. Emoto one million dollars to reproduce his results in a controlled double-blind experiment. Emoto hasn't accepted the challenge.
http://www.randi.org/jr/052303.html
Some high-school kids did try to reproduce Emoto's results and received inconclusive results.
http://66.201.42.16/viewitem.php3?id=910&catid=510&kbid=ionsikc
Dr. Emoto admits he's not a scientist
http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/etruth.html#23
You can also play... Dr. Emoto's... "cloud-vanishing game"
Quantum mechanics discovered some new principles that changed the face of science over 100 years ago. These concepts stretch our very perceptions and "Man's mind, stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimension". As we stretch our philosophical parameters we stretch our ability to perceive new discovery. And through increased perception, we can see old discovery in new light that changes the very scope of our knowledge. It's very exciting.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Pensacola '94
New Orleans '95
Birmingham '98
New Orleans '00
New Orleans '03
Tampa '08
New Orleans '10 - Jazzfest
New Orleans '16 - Jazzfest
Fenway Park '18
St. Louis '22
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
The theory that non-believers may be just as biased as believers, and I'm not sure if you said this part, but in case you did not, I'll add it in as well: the position one takes determines the outcome of the conclusion that one receives.
For example, referring to Mr. Emoto and his water crystals, some choose to believe him, some choose to believe he's not for real. All I know is that he's presented a case and shown some results. And yet, as a counter argument, in the link provided by Ahnimus, the article points out that Mr. Emoto is not a traditional scientist and yet Mr Emoto doesn't claim to be one. The article uses much mockery, and more "proof-of-what-you-can't-prove: that-being-a-negative", saying he did not provide double blind tests. While a good deal of attempted discrediting went on, nothing at all was proven contrary to Mr. Emoto's assertions. Unfortunately the argument in the link, coming from the the old "you-can't-prove-a-negative" view is ineffective in trying to prove a negative. While it's entirely ineffective on it's own, because in case I've not said this enough: you can't prove a negative, it IS effective with it's use of "scientism" and scientific terms, couched in before-mentioned mockery, in convincing people they are seeing the scientific view. So while it's an inaccurate method, it sure is an effective one in swaying "logical" people in a "logical society" to a "socially acceptable" point of view, whether inaccurate or not.
It reminds me of the technique of cloud-busting pertaining to the practise of inaccurate skeptism and scientism taken as truth.
a)You must have a blind faith that Mr. Emoto is going to be revealed as a fraud, since an "authority" is implying such.
b)Relax: if you actually exercise your own brain muscle, you must face the reality that mockery aside, alternate views stand until they are proven otherwise. And hence you ruin the scientism effect.
c)Imagine that all things in science including spinoffs such as scientism and scientific words used are more valid than the truth.
d)Say to yourself that the "authoritarian" and mocking pseudo-logical voice is valid enough times, and you will receive your "truth".
e)And in the past tense, thank scientism for your sense of egoistically holding the market on what we must admit we don't yet understand.
The cool thing about the cloud-busting phenomena, similar to the complementarity principle in quantum physics is that it demonstrates how depending on how we look at things, we will end up with our personal worldview being validated in our perception.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I'd like to see someone "bust" a chair.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
No, the skeptics are just asking for proof to begin with. Dr. Tilly from the "What the BLEEP do we know?" movie is also a skeptic of Dr. Emoto's work.
The burden of disproof is not on the scientific community. The burden of proof is on Dr. Emoto to reproduce his experiments in a controlled environment, provide instructions to reproduce his results and open up his research for peer review. He has done nothing of the sort. He is not a scientists, and his results are not scientific.
I mean, if you are going to just believe anything, look up vortexes and laylines, Evlis isn't dead, Aliens from Cyphertron are anal probing people, Bigfoot is a being of superior intellect from an alternate reality that opens a portal to our universe to walk around in the woods naked, psychics really do read minds - even when the results are inconclusive, and the world is ruled by an elite group called the Illuminati.
Mr. Emoto is not under any pressure to do anything within the parameters of the scientific community, anymore than I am. Or anymore than you are held to the tenets of the Catholic religion. He can choose to do whatever he wants. If that bothers you and you think an appropriate response is to react with scientism, ostracization, public shaming, and maybe a red letter of shame pinned to him, due to your own feelings, that is not about Mr. Emoto. Just know that your scientism cannot trump pseudo-science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!