InfiniteNow Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 1. No-things, absence of thoughts, consciousness being conscious of consciousness, things (objective) are thoughts (subjective) manifested at different rates of vibrations.2. Finite objects split on the microscopic level (the fertilized ovum).3. Life on the microscopic level is unstable.4. This sum total is what some few label as God while the masses give glory to the creating attribute of this diety. What we must learn to accept is that as sure as each of us took the time to formulate and give order to our communications, that there was a moment in duration for the calculation of the formulation that we call the "Big Bang" which is simply a part of the unknown of the unknowable. Peace Mark 4:11 While mystical explorations are possible in our community, we will limit them and I highly advise you refrain from such exploration in the Astronomy & Cosmology forum, Heavy. I fail to see how any of what you've posted above is relevant, and seems more a demonstration of a wandering mind and wannabe preacher. Please see the Theology forum for discussion on dieties, and provide a citation in support of your third point. Thanks for your immediate compliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 I believe that rule #10 in the How should I behave section of the rules states that rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated. Does this rule only apply to site members such as myself?My points where directed to his 4 summary points.Cosmology- a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe.Physics- a science that deals energy and matter and thier interactions.Meta-- situated behind or beyondbeyond or behind the energy and matter or beyond your understanding. How is it irrelevant? I believe that another of the site rules is to accept and respect that your answer or opinion is not the only possibly correct one. Peace. Know Thyself Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eclogite Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 I believe that rule #10 in the How should I behave section of the rules states that rude and offensive behaviour is not tolerated. Does this rule only apply to site members such as myself?This rule applies to everyone. You appear to be suggesting that Infinite Now's remarks were somehow rude and offensive. I hope this was not the case, since a careful analysis of his post reveals nothing of that nature.My points where directed to his 4 summary points.Now there is, perhaps, the root of the problem. Who is 'his'? Ah, yes, it is Durgatosh. And Durgatosh does indeed have four points earlier in the thread. However, on a thread of this length, it can be difficult to figure out that is the case. (Initially I thought you might be referencing his opening post, though that has only three points!)It is also somewhat difficult to jump back and forth from the original points, to your replies. Taken out of context, just as four stand alone points, you do seem to be, as InfiniteNow suggested, "a wandering mind and wannabee preacher".I hope you can see that with slightly different formatting - perhaps repeating Durgatosh's points one by one - you could have avoided the confusion that led Infinite Now to his comments. That said, you would still have come across as something of a 'preacher'.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavy Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 This does not change the fact that cosmology is a branch of metaphysics.Metaphysics is the study of things behind or beyond energy and matter and thier interactions.Why would there be a branch of science for this study if there was nothing or no-thing behind or beyond energy and matter and thier interactions.Then that my friend would make cosmology irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durgatosh Posted January 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 Compartmentalization of knowledge into different subjects like physics, mathemetics, philosophy etc undoubtedly is important to allow streamlined discussion on a topic. However, I believe that too much compartmentalization leads to limitations in the understanding of the whole picture. Science and philosophy should be considered complementary and not necessarily antagonistic. If you rely only on hard core observational data to prove or disprove a theory, you are indeed following the basic tenets of science, but would miss out on other methods of enquiry and verifications like logic, philosophy, math ... Coming to a few specific questions by Heavy,Heavy2. Finite objects split on the microscopic level (the fertilized ovum).3. Life on the microscopic level is unstable. Its not quite the same. The split of a fertilized ovum is a programmed genetic phenomena which depends on multiple external factors like oxygenation, nutrition etc. The same holds true for the life at microscopic level. Split (instability) of entities in close proximity to zero is spontaneous, because of the inherent instability of the entities. Heavy4. This sum total is what some few label as God while the masses give glory to the creating attribute of this diety. What we must learn to accept is that as sure as each of us took the time to formulate and give order to our communications, that there was a moment in duration for the calculation of the formulation that we call the "Big Bang" which is simply a part of the unknown of the unknowable. Peace I don't know if I could understand it completely. I believe that the sum total of the universe is zero, but with an infinite range (from negative infinity to positive infinity). Does this also represent God? I do not know, but to me, the closest understanding of God is the equivalence of zero and infinity. Heavy1. No-things, absence of thoughts, consciousness being conscious of consciousness, things (objective) are thoughts (subjective) manifested at different rates of vibrations. This would necessitate a full-fledged debate regarding the nature of consciousness. While I have my views on this subject, I am not completely clear about it. I am not yet enlightened. Although such a discussion cannot be avoided because it is critical to the understanding of complete reality, , I don't know if discussing it in this thread would be appropriate. DP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 This does not change the fact that cosmology is a branch of metaphysics.Though correct, this is an incomplete definition of the term “cosmology”. According to wikipedia, “cosmology” is “the study of the Universe in its totality, and has several related but critically distinct meaning in different academic disciplines. As used in the Physical Science Asronomy and Cosmology forum, it refers to Physical_cosmology. The use of the term to which Heavy refers, metaphysical cosmology, would be more appropriate for discussion in the Philosophy and Humanities forum.Why would there be a branch of science for this study if there was nothing or no-thing behind or beyond energy and matter and thier interactions.Metaphysical cosmology is not usually, in modern usage, considered a branch of science, but of philosophy. The distinction between physical and metaphysical cosmology is, in modern usage, an important one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted January 7, 2007 Report Share Posted January 7, 2007 Hello All White holes and worm holes are just theories and most do not agree that they may exist. This is movie stuff material.harry, but it's agreed that inside a black hole ,time stops... and the singularity inside the black hole has "-ve" or imaginary time..... Anything having an opposite property to our universe is considered as imaginary as there is no way we can know their properties... white hole may be imaginary ,but mathematically it runs back ward in time and it'll be in a -ve universe. according to the equation Schwarzschild derived from relativity theory,a -ve universe does exist and so does the worm hole and white hole....atleast,mathematically..... let me ask you a question?how do you know that -ve numbers or complex numbers exist? for your information , the -ve or complex numbers are imaginary...there is no real explanation for them...but they are mathematically possible...and so is the -ve universe and wormholes and white holes.. there is no evidence for them but it's mathematically posiible....... if someone asks you ,"can there be a circle with a -ve radius ?", the answer is ,yes it can exist ,but it will be in the complex plain.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 durgatosh, this may sound little bizzare,,,but,,i wonder ,how massive blackholes are formed in the center or nucleus of the galaxies?. Black Holes are the " dead bodies" of supermassive stars.... i have a bizzare idea on this.. ....but first i want to know what you guys think... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 How many concurrent threads on black holes do we need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 14, 2007 Report Share Posted January 14, 2007 How many concurrent threads on black holes do we need?Truly, IMHO one or the other of these should be closed and directions given to all those interested to take their activity on this subject over to the remaining thread..........................Infy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatstep Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 If we combine the above points to come to a conclusion, it is obvious that the sum total of everything in the universe is zero. But because zero cannot exist on its own, it can only exist as a vast multitude of positives and negatives. Therefore, the universe never began, nor will it ever end. It has always existed and will always exist as an infinite multitude of positive and negative things and phenomena, the sum total of which will always be zero. If that's true then quantum mechanics is wrong, according to QM almost 90% of all energy/matter in the universe is dark; according to your theory, there should be 50% dark and 50% 'light' or normal energy, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kailas_knight Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 dear fatstep ,according to your theory, there should be 50% dark and 50% 'light' or normal energy, right? Wrong........ Here 50% of +ve and -ve matter/energy means ,50% ordinary matter/energy and 50% -ve matter/energy or Antimatter/energy , not dark matter/darkenergy ... Dark matter and Anti-matter are completely different from each other..... ok... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cohen avshalom Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 you could see also icarus5.com unlimited energy at the edge of the universe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay-qu Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 you could see also icarus5.com unlimited energy at the edge of the universewould you care to elaborate on that one Cohen? What do you mean by 'unlimited' and 'edge'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cohen avshalom Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 'unlimited' and 'edge' -unlimited is process that repeat recursion way(time after time -never stop-without exit) edge-what is the size of the know universe?-and what have after that.thank you for posting remarkcohen avshalom charly isreal/haifa (icarus5 . com) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatstep Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 dear fatstep , Wrong........ Here 50% of +ve and -ve matter/energy means ,50% ordinary matter/energy and 50% -ve matter/energy or Antimatter/energy , not dark matter/darkenergy ... Dark matter and Anti-matter are completely different from each other..... ok... Ok...next question, what's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatstep Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 you could see also icarus5.com unlimited energy at the edge of the universe I sure would not trust a source that doesn't even know proper grammar or how to spell, but that's just me. One other thing, I hate when people or groups or whatever say 'the edge', just because we cannot see further due to technology does not make it the edge of the universe, it makes it the farthest we can see, not the actual edge, if there even is one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.