It must be about a million years old, and it is just now visible.
I make this assumption knowing two things.
1) My first wife is about that old, and
2) She is the biggest "hole" Ive ever known..
Hence, scientists are merely seeing where she was before she decended upon this unsuspecting planet.
uh, but I'm not bitter or nuthin'
I make this assumption knowing two things.
1) My first wife is about that old, and
2) She is the biggest "hole" Ive ever known..
Hence, scientists are merely seeing where she was before she decended upon this unsuspecting planet.
uh, but I'm not bitter or nuthin'
Rover Puppy said:After awhile, flying is boring.
I still want to know if Al Gore knows how to time travel????
Al Gore invented the internet and pants!:rofl:
gil stevens said:
Seems to me that at the end of the universe, you would simply be back where you started. Throw a rock hard enough, and it will hit you in the back of the head.
This seems to make the most sense to me. I find it unlikely that we are floating around in a ball. What's the ball in? My way, it doesn't have to be in anything. It's folded in on itself, and one side is the same as the other, because they exist in the same time and space through some physical trickery. We can't really observe the nature of this, because we are a part of the system. So we guess at it.
That makes it all work quite nicely.
And I liked string theory. M theory is even better, though. That one makes more sense, even though string theory was the epitome of elegance. Not that far off of one another, though, in the end.
Cheers,
Kennith
G
gil stevens
Guest
kennith said:
i would concur with that assesment.. to an extent. the reason said rock will hit you in the back of the head is due to gravitational forces, a force which we think we understand, but ultimately do not. we do though, interact with it each and every day, so its in the realm of our understanding. as a child i assumed the universe was a ball, most likely from the interaction with our planet, moon, sun, etc all of which are spherical. i agree though, that universe is most likely not a ball. i think in essence its a multi-dimensional configuration of which we could never conceive due to our limitations of only being able to perceive three dimensions. basically in agreement with your view of the universe.
string and M theroy are fascinating from the viewpoint of someone with a casual interest in physics.. i am by no stretch of the imagination a phycist. the problem i have with both is that assumptions are created and then grafted around the theroys to ultimately make them work. the notions of parrell dimensions is not an easy one for the human mind to wrap itself around, but when it does, quite literally all of our perceptions are changed. what i find most impressive about either theroy is the way that "matter" acts at the quantum level in that it pretty much surmises that we have nary a clue as to why things work the way they do. the double slit experiement and the actions of particles vs. light goes against the grain of all that we "know" [or dont know for that matter]
what does it suggest that a particle acts differently when observed? does it mean that none of this exists outside our perceptions? and if so, then what are we perceiving?
Similar, but not quite. Perhaps a mobius in more than the way we think of normally.
A more accurate description might be that the universe is simply a collection of possibilities at any given point in time and space. The farther out you go from your apparent position, the closer you are to returning to it, since everything in effect exists at the same time and in the same place. It has an end, but it doesn't.
The practice of it would follow a set of laws, thought they may seem lawless to most people. An example is Pi. It has a predictible pattern, but few people see it, or take note of it even when they do.
One can rest assured that the next digit they come up with will apparently have nothing to do with the last digits. The way I see it, the universe doesn't see this as a problem. Perhapse if we stopped looking at it as numbers on a page, and tried to really understand what makes our math work when it does, we might get it someday.
There are physical dimensions to it, but not the way we know them. You have to do your best to imagine something that doesn't require a shape to have a shape.
A mobius is a good example in theory, but in practice it is just a twisted piece of paper existing in the same system we are trying to describe.
But what the hell do I know?
Cheers,
Kennith
A more accurate description might be that the universe is simply a collection of possibilities at any given point in time and space. The farther out you go from your apparent position, the closer you are to returning to it, since everything in effect exists at the same time and in the same place. It has an end, but it doesn't.
The practice of it would follow a set of laws, thought they may seem lawless to most people. An example is Pi. It has a predictible pattern, but few people see it, or take note of it even when they do.
One can rest assured that the next digit they come up with will apparently have nothing to do with the last digits. The way I see it, the universe doesn't see this as a problem. Perhapse if we stopped looking at it as numbers on a page, and tried to really understand what makes our math work when it does, we might get it someday.
There are physical dimensions to it, but not the way we know them. You have to do your best to imagine something that doesn't require a shape to have a shape.
A mobius is a good example in theory, but in practice it is just a twisted piece of paper existing in the same system we are trying to describe.
But what the hell do I know?
Cheers,
Kennith
gil stevens said:
Science is more about assumptions than religion.
That's what I don't like about it. We need to stop for a minute and start thinking again. It is not enough to stand on the shoulders of giants, we need to cut them down at the knees.
It is my opinion, that we cannot expect to understand the whole by understanding the small pieces. I believe that to understand the meaning of the small pieces, we need the picture on the box.
Cheers,
Kennith
And yes, the force we know as gravity may cause the effects I described. Still, it may not. It's all just speculation. Even Hawking is known for coming up with ideas and having people run the math on them to check if they are possible. Though much of his writings seems illogical to me.
It's a guessing game.
Cheers,
Kennith
It's a guessing game.
Cheers,
Kennith
I don't know where you guys get your information.
Everyone knows the earth is flat, and the sun & planets revolve around the earth.
Therefore, the universe is a half sphere sitting on top of the flat earth.
Imagine it like this: cut a ball in half & set it on your desk.
Done.
Everyone knows the earth is flat, and the sun & planets revolve around the earth.
Therefore, the universe is a half sphere sitting on top of the flat earth.
Imagine it like this: cut a ball in half & set it on your desk.
Done.
G
gil stevens
Guest
yeah man, i hear ya.. and thats the flip out is that it is all a guessing game. this thing that we live in, and everything we can possibly conceive of is a part of something that we can in no uncertain terms understand. along the lines of what you were saying regarding science is that science presupposes that the only things in existence are what we can perceive.. essentially thru our five senses. and then prove.. which i think is way off base.. i think that by limiting our knowledge and understanding to what can be input thru 5 oddly shaped organs is the major hinderance in our "understanding"
personally i dont understand how every human being isnt outside in the yard looking up at the sky wondering what the f8ck is going on here? :wtf:
personally i dont understand how every human being isnt outside in the yard looking up at the sky wondering what the f8ck is going on here? :wtf:
G
gil stevens
Guest
jim-00-4.6 said:
haha.. while in jest, your making a great point. not long ago, that was what we perceived and now, knowing what we do, thats nothing more then joke fodder.. i see a time in the not so distant future where what we think we know now will be as ridculous as a flat earth
atriot:
The book "The Dancing Wu Li Masters" talks about this subject and how western scientific thinking has trouble grasping the duality of matter, particle or wave etc., and how eastern philosphy can help one grasp the incompatabilities of the science we explore.
I enjoy thinking about theoretical physics, it is as enlightening to me as religion or philosphy.
I agree that there are millions of possibilities at any moment, past present or future and each can have its own reality or dimension. What is interesting is that the math is catching up with concepts that were heretofore the realm of spitiruality.
I enjoy thinking about theoretical physics, it is as enlightening to me as religion or philosphy.
I agree that there are millions of possibilities at any moment, past present or future and each can have its own reality or dimension. What is interesting is that the math is catching up with concepts that were heretofore the realm of spitiruality.
G
gil stevens
Guest
landrovered said:
i agree.. and in actuality i see all three as part of the same whole. what is religion? its an answer provided to us by historical perspectives and it gives those who are unable to answer the questions themselves a viable conclusion. much like philosophy, which is also attempting to answer the same question, albeit without the moral standards and sometimes whimsical belief structures.. much like theoretical physics is yet again attempting to answer the same question although thru the slant of science..
having been to the "east" and spent some time with gurus and sherpas, i know exactly what you mean referring to their spirituality and our limited version of the same. we as western culture, in my opinion, and my opinion only, are on the wrong course and everyone of us could stand to use some eastern enlightenment..
[disclaimer: no offense implied or suggested to any religions that anyone chooses to practice. the previous statment or statements are strictly my opinion and therefore not representative of this site, its owners, or land rover drivers in general]
G
gil stevens
Guest
