CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Ahh if only it was that simple to change my point of view... We are not ants in a box.. We are people on a planet... and you are implying we're bugs in a small square box... Oh well, I guess humour can only go so far... It's just an analogy. If you don't accept it as a fair analogy, then - well -fair enough. I haven't got the emotional energy to have an intellectial pissing contest. Especially with someone who's main interest is in the pissing part... Time is infinite in a backwards direction. Whatever you say Jack. Consider your bunny cranked. ...man, those are great words for a song... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo Oh well, I guess humour can only go so far... It's just an analogy. If you don't accept it as a fair analogy, then - well -fair enough. I haven't got the emotional energy to have an intellectial pissing contest. Especially with someone who's main interest is in the pissing part... Well I have been reading allot of watered down ideas lately. So after awhile I got go pee..... Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo Tme is infinite in a backwards direction. Whatever you say Jack. Consider your bunny cranked. Well I never said you had to agree with me.... Seeing how you are replying to that. I still don't think you get the idea of what I have said about it.. Maybe you really need to look over what I typed again. I'm really not thinking about time like you are thinking about time... Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo ...man, those are great words for a song... Hmm no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I'm really not thinking about time like you are thinking about time... Time is whatever you want it to be in your head. ...or whatever the clever man says in his totally theoretical idea you've seen on TV. No, hang on, I think I get it now... *takes a drag* Yeah man. Time is like - not finite - but - like - it's also not INFINITE man! *takes a deeper drag* Wow - it's just whatever you comprehend it to be! Wow, this is trippy. F**king proof s**t. Why was I being so god damn square?! ...f**k man, where did I put the twinkies? With that, I've just remembered that I have - like - 10,000 better things to do than agressively argue about totally theoretical ideas which a bull-headed random stranger on the internet. So good day to you. I'm going to stop typing now, go outside, and enjoy the beauty of infinite time. Oh no - sorry, NOT infinite time. Whatever. Have a good life. Feel free to believe whatever you like. And don't forget to pee... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo Time is whatever you want it to be in your head. ...or whatever the clever man says in his totally theoretical idea you've seen on TV. Hmm where have you got your ideas from. What makes you more qualified than anyone else on here to discuses anything with anyone? I can't recall any original ideas from you just regurgitated crud like everyone else... My idea was part regurgitated crud and part original idea... Sorry you don't like my original idea and are to busy bathing in regurgitated crud. Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo No, hang on, I think I get it now... *takes a drag* Yeah man. Time is like - not finite - but - like - it's also not INFINITE man! *takes a deeper drag* Wow - it's just whatever you comprehend it to be! Wow, this is trippy. F**king proof s**t. Why was I being so god damn square?! ...f**k man, where did I put the twinkies? Lol nice to know you have experience with something. To bad it isn't thinking... Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo With that, I've just remembered that I have - like - 10,000 better things to do than agressively argue about totally theoretical ideas which a bull-headed random stranger on the internet. Well in that case I would suggest not posting anymore in any forum, because that is what you have been doing scene you started... Besides that you didn't argue anything with me.... Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo So good day to you. I'm going to stop typing now, go outside, and enjoy the beauty of infinite time. Oh no - sorry, NOT infinite time. Whatever. Have a good life. Feel free to believe whatever you like. And don't forget to pee... How totally irrational your post makes me feel like I'm at work. Do you have a treatment plan? I feel like you made it, because you don't understand what I'm saying and you are lashing out with irrational statements. I have noticed you get like this with anyone that doesn't see it your way say "Lukeskywalker1?" I like the way you have totally bashed my idea and "me for it" in the most rudest way you can. I commend you "most rude of you.." Even more than myself. I'm not even that bad. At this moment I'm at a loss to explain why you acted out the way you did. Other than some kind of inferiority complex, maybe a little chemical dependence, poly substance abuse maybe. Whatever it may be. After reading your post I got to go pee... You gave me a really watered down response. To bad it wasn't nonalcoholic. Before I do that Cpl Obvious "myself" must relinquish command to a far more qualified person. At this time I crown you "King Irrational" have a glorious rule.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 CTBDTCAB: even though you admit instruments or senses CAN be falible, if the data we SEEMED to collect makes sense, and provides positive evidence towards rational theories, we have every right to see that as 'truth'. even though I admit instruments, senses and especially our perception is faliable, if the data we seemed to collect brings more accurate explanation of the reality we live in, and provides proof (survives criticism, experimental testing optionally, has no unsatisfying things in it), we have every right to see that as truth. I would still admit the 'possibility' of error - no matter how small. We can render any physical possibility in principle. What can stop us in principle to find this error. This is more close to practical issues, which I would like you agree we're not discussing. We're talking about principal things. I don't believe this is true though. The counter-argument is that God has succeded in covering his tracks well enough so that you are fooled into coming to the conclusion he does not exist!! But as long as we can't see the way to put it somewhere, we won't have an unsatisfying problem of explanation. Let's say God decides to show himself and makes a miracle which interferes with our fundamental laws of physics. So at moment of his making miracle there is an anomaly to the world we live in. Some scientists who have seen the miracle would question it. If god would be so kind to repeat it, they would try to measure it and explain it in terms of our fundamental laws. If they fail, they'd have to alter their fundamental laws to fit this anomaly. Let's imagine that god repeats this miracle in loop in some place on earth. Non-altered laws would sound like (if it's not being able to be discribed with normal physics):"Everywhere these laws are true except miracle in earth location x,y,z". I guess you see a problem of this statement, it would be obvious that a better explanation of reality would be needed. Now, we don't confirm to have encountered any anomalies to this moment, our fundamental understanding of reality are not disturbed by the concept of god. It doesn't impact us, it doesn't worth mentioning. So how can be god disproved? Don't know, it's just we'll have to alter our model of proof. How can we put god aside? Only with better explanation of reality without god, rather than with one (that's a disprove also if a problem solving mechanism of proof is taken in consideration). Bible doesn't explain god better than scientists can do (with all their evolutions, big bangs etc.) Infinity is also close to God in this respect. The concept of infinity, while not impossible to prove rationally - is DAMN DIFFICULT to prove rationally. I don't know, maybe you're going too far in it. Infinity is an abstraction, and it has fixed amount of properties, as we invented them. I'm just RPing as a Sith Poster Oh. And I was just thinking to put you in to my black list. Do you believe in woodoo? (don't answer, It's a threat... I mean joke ) CTBD vs Jack score: 5:8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul Oh. And I was just thinking to put you in to my black list. Do you believe in woodoo? (don't answer, It's a threat... I mean joke ) Why would anyone ever want to black list me:halo2: and I don't do woodoo. Originally posted by Homuncul CTBD vs Jack score: 5:8 I WIN ! ! ! No nobody wins in a petty forum argument we all lose. We lost a peaceful thread to post our ideas on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CloseTheBlastDo Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 CJ, I commend you "most rude of you.." Even more than myself. I'm not even that bad. ... heh - let's get a few things clear. YOUR the one who started debating in an overly-aggressive manner at the drop of a hat - NOT me. I guess H has accused me of going over the top a bit - especially with the length of posts etc. - and I accept that. But I wasn't aggressive until you intitated it. You only need to look at me and Homonocul. We've disagreed on a lot of stuff. Even strongly. But it's always remained civil. ...and the insinuation that I have just dismissed H's arguments is absolute bull. ABSOLUTE. We've discussed our views, and actually, we've found, at least in some areas, they are closer than we've probably given credit for. Well, I'll let H speak for himself, but it seems that way to me I may have got 'testy' with Luke, but we've been debating on and off for probably getting on to over 100 posts now - in a totally circular fashion. It took a grand total of two! on a certain subject before you reduced it to mindless insult-fencing. ...no, in fact - scratch that. You had an attitude with me even before I realised I was even debating you!! lol And anyway, it's a bit rich you trying to make a big deal of the way I've spoken to Luke. You were giving out FAR more flat-out insults than I was in the Christian thread. FAR more... But anyway, I wasn't 'bashing' your ideas (at least not initially), I was just questioning them - which I have every right to do. There is a plain difference. If you can't see the difference, well I guess you wouldn't - apparently your an (LOL) 'angry sith' (LOL - ooooooooooo). I think you'd prefer to debate against people who will roll over and believe any old crap, because you happen to mention the words 'relativity' and 'infinity' during your ramblings about hideously vague theorys - in exactly the same way Luke wants people to roll over and beleive whatever he says because he uses the words 'Bible' and 'Hell'. Anyway - yes, by all means. I'm irrational. This kind of claim, coming from the man who thinks time is both not finite and not INfinite at the same time, doesn't actually mean a hell of a lot though... and btw - anything else which is NOT finite and NOT infinite? (Whatever in the holy name of f**k that means!!) Space? Matter? To be honest, it doesn't matter really, you can make up anything you like. It doesn't even have to make any sense - these are only theories after all. By all means, go wild. ...I'm sure you'll find someone gulliable to listen to you eventually... No nobody wins in a petty forum argument we all lose. We lost a peaceful thread to post our ideas on... That's ONE thing we can agree on. At this time I crown you "King Irrational" have a glorious rule.... I can't beleive you've given up your reign without more of a fight - but hey, that's cool. My first act as King is to tell all to crank their bunnies REALLY hard. ...except CJ, who has probably already tortured and skinned it in a fit of 'sith' (LOL) rage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 21, 2003 Share Posted October 21, 2003 I thought you had 10,000 better things to do? I won't respond to the mindless crud you posted above this line, because it is the same crud you have been saying the hole time. I will say this. I have stated several times I never expected you to agree with me. It wasn't very good of you to quote me from another page to make fun of what I said just, because you don't comprehend it. That was the 1st thing I saw when I popped on this thread to me it was rude... I have been more than nice to you, but that was the last straw. The fact that you keep trying to make pointless little jokes "about my idea" just shows me how irrational and unintelligible of a debater you are... If you think I'm rude you should look in the mirror a little longer... All I had to do to get on your bad side was post a idea you don't understand. Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo ...I'm sure you'll find someone gulliable to listen to you eventually... Maybe you will too.... Originally posted by CloseTheBlastDo I can't beleive you've given up your reign without more of a fight - but hey, that's cool. My first act as King is to tell all to crank their bunnies REALLY hard. ...except CJ, who has probably already tortured and skinned it in a fit of 'sith' (LOL) rage. Well given this post I would just make you "GOD Irrational," but I don't believe in any gods and I really didn't give up anything. I deal in the obvious you deal in the Irrational so we are on 2 separate fields; however, you are far better at being irrational then I am at being obvious. Obviously Irrational...... Anyway thank you for stopping by and continuing the mindless insults. Time for you to go back to the 10,000 better things to do than debate with me or any other person on the forum right? Especially since you can't debate with me just make fun of. I don't really see any point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted October 22, 2003 Share Posted October 22, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul [b(I can hear Jub is recovering his body from eternal dust, training his finger muscles, taking his keyboard out of the closet and starts typing something hidius) [/b] Hideous, eh? First of all I have to say that I've lost a considerable part of my joy of posting in the Senate for reasons that shall remain politely unsaid. Secondly, I've caught a second, slightly different branch of the flu upon coming home for a weekend visit from the public school I'm attending, so my will to debate is thereby additionally lessened. What I will point out (for the nth time it seems) is my taking offence from you, Homuncul, assuming you have refuted any or all of my arguments ever in the Senate; you havn't, but I know you well enough to assume that you yourself through misunderstandings and misinterpretations are convinced that you have done so. So, I will ask you (for the nth time) to let it go, please. I also ask for your own sake, for the longer you keep at it the more ridiculous you'll appear, no offence. I might return when I get better, I might not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 22, 2003 Author Share Posted October 22, 2003 No offense, but SHUT UP!! This was intentionally created to be a rational, clearly though out thread. Cosmos Jack, you're allowed to have your ideas about infinity, just as I am allowed to have mine about God creating the universe in a word. Just as C'jais likes the black-hole universe theory, just as CTBD believes (what the frag does he believe?). And all of us can criticize each other's ideas and theories. That's what science is. Getting offended over it doesn't help. CTBD: you're getting way too irritated for all this. I understand why, and I can even agree with some of what you're saying. But you're not being very rational. Ignore irrational arguments: don't post to them. And you made it worse by degenerating into the same thing he did. Now, to get back to the original topic and drop the flaming (permanently, please ) Homuncul, you have some good points. However, my post earlier wasn't to say that you can't look outside the universe. Just that we lack the ability to do it right now. I also agree with CTBD about infinity. We can only sort of get a grasp on the idea. In contrast to infinity, though, God cannot be disproven. Proven is easier; that's just up to Him. But if He is omniscient and omnipotent, as most religions argue (let's please not get into that debate here ) then He could forever remain unseen by humanity. As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out. Even if the universe were to collapse back in on itself (which it doesn't look like it will) and if it were to somehow explode out again, this could never happen forever. Given the second law of thermodynamics, it would run out of usable energy, and eventually the explosion could not occur. Therefore, even if this would happen, and if like universes could occur (which is so improbable that from a mathematical perspective it's literally impossible), there would have to be a finite number of said universes. Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time. Eventually you run out of energy; there's no way around that as far as we can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Jubatus: So, I will ask you (for the nth time) to let it go, please. I also ask for your own sake, for the longer you keep at it the more ridiculous you'll appear, no offence. I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it circulary, but wasn't it always that way through out history that people didn't want to agree with each other? Sometimes they are stuck in moments when they think they have just defeated there enemies and can't move further. I had this emotion while talking to you, and for that I'm sorry. No one's perfect. I'm also sorry for all this sarcasm and irony directed toward you. I'd like you to know they were not ment to question or flaming your views but to bring your interest back to the forums. And full stop here What I will point out (for the nth time it seems) is my taking offence from you, Homuncul, assuming you have refuted any or all of my arguments ever in the Senate; you havn't, but I know you well enough to assume that you yourself through misunderstandings and misinterpretations are convinced that you have done so No I didn't. As I said and will always say, we're guilty of our opinions. I hold my philosophy, you hold yours (of holding no true beliefs or whatever). And I agree with you and with agnostic thinking to a point (you know where this point is). if I'm misunderstanding agnosticism and it's not what I think, then dispute me. If you don't want to, then please do not ask me to let it go, coz you're no better than me then. I was asked a question and I tryed to answer it. Is that bad? If these are my own misunderstandings and if we both speak the language of rationality, please discribe me my misconceptions and misunderstandings differently, because I couldn't understand them last time. And don't try to hide behind your "screaming" attitude towards christians or influenza (although I'm sorry to hear you are still ill). If you feel that I'm no match for you, then just tell me why? I'll sleep better knowing I'm that and that bad. If you feel that we're talking in the same words about different empirical matters, then at least point me to that. Do I always have to become that serius! This is madness, there is nothing really to talk about. It's a shame of me and of you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 23, 2003 Share Posted October 23, 2003 Homuncul, you have some good points. However, my post earlier wasn't to say that you can't look outside the universe. Just that we lack the ability to do it right now. I don't like talking about technical issues, coz it's a coming thing. Let's talk about principle of a thing. Can you agree that we are able to create a perfect quantum computer working by finite means, being able to calculate/render any phisically possible invironment. This theory is a major point of quantum computation, which now becomes more and more important. This is true and I can point to some philosophical and mathematical works on that issue. More on this, this theory relys on use of multiverse calculation, although by now it is more philosophical issue than mathematical. If the answer to my question is yes, than you'll probably one leg on the road of understanding there are really few things we can imagine of not being able to acomplish. Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time. Who said that? Aaahhhh... pleasure! Homucul's dead girl + Multiverse = ... Love?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys I also agree with CTBD about infinity. We can only sort of get a grasp on the idea. The odd thing about time is it only exists to humans, math only exists to humans, and science only exists to humans. None of these things would be here with out humans to invent them. The word infinite is a invention to describe time. Just like god is a invention. Science or God both would not exist without people to create them and use them. They are explanations and ways of getting answers. How I described time and infinity isn't the way you are thinking about it. For my explanation stop thinking about time the way you have been brought up to believe. Don't even think about it as a true dimension of space. I'm looking at it as something that goes hand in hand with matter. There isn't one without the other. Time is just the measurement of how we and the universe around us change. I wish smoking weed "like CTBD is fond of" would help to explain it better, but I have never done drugs. So I don't know if it would and don't care to try. None of you understand what I'm saying, because you are still stuck running around in a 10 foot circle. I made fun of CTBD analogy of how he sees people in the universe; though, that is pretty much on the dot with how people see themselves in the universe. The fact that we are stuck thinking inside a box is what is hindering us.. We are bred to think inside the box.. As in everything has a begining and a end. Originally posted by Master_Keralys As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out. "Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge." "The sound barer will never be broken." "Rockets will never work in space, because combustion is impossible in a vacuum." Like I said before Math and science are just tools. All tools can be used in the wrong way. Trusting math and science in the hands of a human is like trusting a jumbo jet in the hands of a chimp. "That's a little extrem." We haven't used them long enough to understand them totally and we are seeing this everyday.. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Even if the universe were to collapse back in on itself (which it doesn't look like it will) and if it were to somehow explode out again, this could never happen forever. Given the second law of thermodynamics, it would run out of usable energy, and eventually the explosion could not occur. Therefore, even if this would happen, and if like universes could occur (which is so improbable that from a mathematical perspective it's literally impossible), there would have to be a finite number of said universes. Hmm Ok where does the particles of matter that make up this expended energy go? Do they just disappear? One thing you forgot about matter is you can't destroy it. It is a constant. All you can do is change it's composition. Lots of things do this Nuclear reactors, stars, and black holes even a camp fire. They all break down matter at the atomic or molecular level ripping the protons, neutrons, and electrons apart and combining them into something else. If all this matter still exists and it will. The universe "if it collapsed in on itself" The equivalent to a supper massive proton size black hole. All the matter that changed would be smashed back together. Pressure also changes the composition of matter. A diamond is a good example. Cole is made of carbon so is a diamond.. Both are totally different and have different properties. Try cutting glass with a chunk of cole. Metamorphic rocks are rocks that have been changed to pressure and heat. At the end of their change they are not the same rocks. I would speculate that all matter can be changed with enough pressure and heat.. A star does that every second. Pressure unknown to us. "The kind that would come from all the matter in the universe compressed together." I think would cause massive changes... Matter in any form is recyclable. As long as you have the basic building blocks you have anything you want. If you want water take Hydrogen, Oxygen, and put them together. If you don't have Oxygen. Take 8 electrones, 8 protones, and 8 neutrons and you have an oxygen atom. That is how the universe works. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Though I disagree with it, multiverse is a much more probable theory than infinite time. Eventually you run out of energy; there's no way around that as far as we can tell. The way I see it. You can either (A) Believe that a god created the hole universe and has some purpose for all this. "A end all be all answer for everything." (B) Believe that the universe and all "time" and "matter" began with the big bang. From witch nothing existed before. At the end. The the universe will be spread out thin and without form. All stars will burn out because all the neergy will be spent. And all the matter will drift into the void of unknown space forever, because time is only infinite forward not backward. "To bad god doesn't exist Someone needs to push stop and rewind? Because this is pointless.." © Believe that our corner of the known universe is in a constant state of recycle. That after billions or trillions of years all the spent matter is collected by black holes. These black holes collapse into each other. The pressure from all the matter forms the black hole into a small spinning object the size of a proton. The matter at this state changes and becomes unsteady repeals itself outwards and the universe begins again new. "If god did exist he created a perfect machine no need to stop and rewind here.." I will pull a Homuncul here and compare science to martial arts. There is no unifying all out Martial Art that does everything perfect. There are; however, hundreds of styles "Theories." All of them have strong points and week points. Like the theories on the creation, evolution, and destiny of the universe. A Universal Theory would be like a Universal Martial Art and end all be all perfect answer. There would be no questions. "This is what you do, how you do it, and it works for everything." There is no Martial arts practitioner that can study all the best parts of all the arts and combine them. We can; however, study all the best parts of all the theories and work them together so that the universe can make since. I don't think all the theories are wrong I think they are only part of the answer. You must weed out the unlikely from the more likely. 100 years from now all the laws that are thrown around here will be proven false. Another best possible guess will be in place using a yet unknown form of math. No I'm not predicting the future just looking at the past. As we evolve so will how we look at the universe and what we use to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 24, 2003 Author Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Cosmos Jack Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge." "The sound barer will never be broken." "Rockets will never work in space, because combustion is impossible in a vacuum." None of these are relevant. At all whatsoever. The fact is that unless the universe is infinite (and I again ask how an infinite universe can be expanding), there is a finite amount of energy and matter available in the universe. Originally posted by Cosmos Jack Hmm Ok where does the particles of matter that make up this expended energy go? Do they just disappear? One thing you forgot about matter is you can't destroy it. It is a constant. All you can do is change it's composition. Lots of things do this Nuclear reactors, stars, and black holes even a camp fire. They all break down matter at the atomic or molecular level ripping the protons, neutrons, and electrons apart and combining them into something else. If all this matter still exists and it will. The universe "if it collapsed in on itself" The equivalent to a supper massive proton size black hole. All the matter that changed would be smashed back together. Pressure also changes the composition of matter. A diamond is a good example. Cole is made of carbon so is a diamond.. Both are totally different and have different properties. Try cutting glass with a chunk of cole. Metamorphic rocks are rocks that have been changed to pressure and heat. At the end of their change they are not the same rocks. I would speculate that all matter can be changed with enough pressure and heat.. A star does that every second. Pressure unknown to us. "The kind that would come from all the matter in the universe compressed together." I think would cause massive changes... Matter in any form is recyclable. As long as you have the basic building blocks you have anything you want. If you want water take Hydrogen, Oxygen, and put them together. If you don't have Oxygen. Take 8 electrones, 8 protones, and 8 neutrons and you have an oxygen atom. That is how the universe works. Okay, this is irrelevant. The problem I posed was that the universe would run out of usable energy. While there are similarities between matter and energy, eventually the universe's energy will all be converted to heat. No known process can use heat for power. I'm not saying there isn't one that we don't know about, but to claim that energy will simply be altered in form is to propose some unknown mechanism simply to support your theory. Moreover, you comment about water is an absurdity . That's chemistry, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with energy. It's utterly irrelevant. And just because 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons makes oxygen doesn't mean that the energy of the universe can be infinitely recycled. Au contraire, all that we know of science says it can't. And don't give me that crud about science and math being only tools. Duh. But you're ideas are founded on the same stuff. They may be only tools, but it's the only way we have to analyze the universe. Your claim is like saying that just because a hammer is only a tool makes it useless for pounding nails into wood. Moreover, the stuff the rest of us are talking about is firmly rooted in the best tools we have accessible. You have yet to do anything except be bitter or talk about how we don't understand the world. We all understand that, but you don't seem to think that it applies to you. PLease give us some real, reasonable support for your ideas; I'm more than happy to listen to that. But his inconsistent and unsupported stuff you're giving us is difficult to stomach. If you have some science to show, use it, but don't just propose your own theory without any backing or credibilty whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubatus Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul I don't blame you for not wanting to discuss it circulary, but wasn't it always that way through out history that people didn't want to agree with each other? Sometimes they are stuck in moments when they think they have just defeated there enemies and can't move further. I had this emotion while talking to you, and for that I'm sorry. No one's perfect. I'm also sorry for all this sarcasm and irony directed toward you. I'd like you to know they were not ment to question or flaming your views but to bring your interest back to the forums. And full stop here. Our 'Philosophy Revival' discussion certainly was circular due to misunderstandings and misinterpretations from both sides - I mean, we took it far! I never regarded the outcome as me having beat you nor vice versa, never. We both presented our cases to the best of our abilities and that was that. I know you mean no real harm with your sarcasm and I trust you when you say you're just trying to get my interest piqued again, yet you know full well how futile I regard most of these debates; guess I just started taking myself serious enough when I said it . What makes me tick about your sarcastic prodding is how "outsiders" to our discussions might perceive it as being truth rather than sarcasm - that is my concern, vain as it is (guilty as charged). No I didn't. As I said and will always say, we're guilty of our opinions. I hold my philosophy, you hold yours (of holding no true beliefs or whatever). And I agree with you and with agnostic thinking to a point (you know where this point is). if I'm misunderstanding agnosticism and it's not what I think, then dispute me. If you don't want to, then please do not ask me to let it go, coz you're no better than me then. By letting go, I don't mean for you to yield to my arguments, I simply mean obliging me in letting the matter rest. A humble request. I was asked a question and I tryed to answer it. Is that bad? If these are my own misunderstandings and if we both speak the language of rationality, please discribe me my misconceptions and misunderstandings differently, because I couldn't understand them last time. And don't try to hide behind your "screaming" attitude towards christians or influenza (although I'm sorry to hear you are still ill). If you feel that I'm no match for you, then just tell me why? I'll sleep better knowing I'm that and that bad. If you feel that we're talking in the same words about different empirical matters, then at least point me to that. Sorry, but I've tried to explain and rephrase it so many times I care not to pick it up again. I trust you know what it's like to hold personal oppinions that you cannot truly, 100% relate to others, because doing so correctly would require the person to have a mindset virtually totally like your own. I am certainly not hiding behind my attitude towards Christianity; I have fully explained how futile it is to rationally discuss against dogma, and I have furthermore implored the rational parties of the Senate to do as I and simply not get involved in such debates (I've followed CTBD's struggle, and I feel his pain). Hiding behind the flu? Ever tried having a serious case of the flu? Ever tried going through it twice over a few weeks? It ain't funny and it renders your mind rather numb. Never stated that I feel superior to you, sorry if you got that impression anywhere along the way. I do not feel I have set you straight about anything. As painful as it is to admit in public, you're a worthy opponent despite being rather frustration-inducing (or maybe because of ) Do I always have to become that serius! This is madness, there is nothing really to talk about. It's a shame of me and of you too. Fret not, my russian comrade, as should be obvious from what I've written in this post I hold you in quite a favorable esteem ----- As for now, I'll probably continue as I've done over these last (many) weeks; throw in a comment hither and thither when a topic interests me and avoid lengthy and tiresome discussions. I am watching though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted October 24, 2003 Share Posted October 24, 2003 Jubatus: Fret not, my russian comrade, as should be obvious from what I've written in this post I hold you in quite a favorable esteem You have my respect then. Cheers. Do svidanya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 25, 2003 Share Posted October 25, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Okay, this is irrelevant. The problem I posed was that the universe would run out of usable energy. While there are similarities between matter and energy, eventually the universe's energy will all be converted to heat. No known process can use heat for power. I'm not saying there isn't one that we don't know about, but to claim that energy will simply be altered in form is to propose some unknown mechanism simply to support your theory. There some part of science you are missing here because I don't think you understand some basic things.. "conservation of matter" Even energy is made up of particles of matter "light or heat is also." All this is radiated energy and it has substance. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Moreover, you comment about water is an absurdity . That's chemistry, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with energy. It's utterly irrelevant. And just because 8 electrons, 8 protons, and 8 neutrons makes oxygen doesn't mean that the energy of the universe can be infinitely recycled. Au contraire, all that we know of science says it can't. I'm getting the impression you really don't know anything here. Originally posted by Master_Keralys And don't give me that crud about science and math being only tools. Duh. But you're ideas are founded on the same stuff. They may be only tools, but it's the only way we have to analyze the universe. So because we have these tools we can't use them wrong? Originally posted by Master_Keralys Your claim is like saying that just because a hammer is only a tool makes it useless for pounding nails into wood. Moreover, the stuff the rest of us are talking about is firmly rooted in the best tools we have accessible. You have yet to do anything except be bitter or talk about how we don't understand the world. We all understand that, but you don't seem to think that it applies to you. LOL A hammer is useless for pounding nails into wood if you don't know what nails are or what to do with a hammer. Besides beating yourself in the head.. Originally posted by Master_Keralys PLease give us some real, reasonable support for your ideas; I'm more than happy to listen to that. But his inconsistent and unsupported stuff you're giving us is difficult to stomach. If you have some science to show, use it, but don't just propose your own theory without any backing or credibilty whatsoever. Your lack of real knowledge and insight is difficult for me to stomach. I feel like I'm talking to a 13 yr old that found a physics book with 1/2 the pages missing. You are as committed to it as you are the bible. You quote it at every chance. To bad your book is missing so much. If you know so much you would know " the law of conservation of matter." "law" means "fact." In fact it is so easy to get info on the net it's pathetic. The fact that you argue me things that all you have to do is type into the search engine and there it is... You will like this page it is a christion page.. http://www.voy.com/28395/4.html This post by someone that really understands physicas. I don't think you made it.. http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/aug98/897017973.Ot.r.html http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/Thermochem/Law-Cons-Mass-Energy.html Here is a school science experiment to try it yourself. lol http://www.phys.virginia.edu/education/outreach/8thgradesol/ConservMatter.htm http://www.site.uottawa.ca:4321/astronomy/index.html#conservationofmatter Upps the big bang theory might be wrong, because of the the law of conservation of matter. If you take that, the big bang theroy, and my idea they work together. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ All these websites are directly linked to what I said. In fact none of my idea would work without the law of conservation of matter. My idea of time wouldn't work also. So either you don't understand that simple law or we really aren't comunicating at all. Knock yourself out with that hammer, because you don't know how to use it... My post isn't edited I have to rush to work.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 26, 2003 Author Share Posted October 26, 2003 Okay, first off: Originally posted by Cosmos Jack Even energy is made up of particles of matter "light or heat is also." All this is radiated energy and it has substance. This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sorry to be possibly rude, but seriously. You're the one who needs a high school physics book. It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all yet, in this case, that energy at its basic component is similar to matter, but in a different shape. It is not matter. It might be made out of strings, as might matter, but strings are more fundamental than either. Energy is not matter. Care to disagree with me? Then you're disagreeing with everyone from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and Witten. Originally posted by Cosmos Jack So because we have these tools we can't use them wrong? No I'm saying you're missing a whole lot of tools. We're using them the best we know how. I'm not saying we don't make mistakes, but we have a tendency to correct them. Your argument is that nearly a century of evidence is wrong because it doesn't fit your happy little theory. Next point. Just because you can find "evidence" on the Internet doesn't make you or it right. Anyone can have a website. That means your sights may have good or bad info. And to be honest, I'm not disagreeing with your theory entirely. I'm simply presenting good evidence against it. That's what good science does; it tries to disprove theories. You can find an infinite amount of evidence supporting your theory, but all it takes is one disproof to disprove the whole thing. I'm simply pointing out the difficulties in your theory, and just as you did against CTBD, you're taking offense. We're perfectly amenable to rational logical discussion of ideas. You have done none of this, simply whine when we try to point out possible flaws in your arguments. WE, on the other hand, have done our best to be rational about your presentation of points against us. I understand that your job makes your life difficult. But if you're not inclined to be exceedingly rational after work, then don't post in the Senate; it'll just make you angry. Seriously, I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I think you're getting way too stressed over a forum, dude. And just because matter + energy in the universe is a constant doesn't mean that matter + usable energy = constant. Heat energy is not usable by any known process. Again, I'm not saying there's processes that we haven't discovered that can use it, but any high school chemistry student could tell you that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all yet, in this case, that energy at its basic component is similar to matter, but in a different shape. It is not matter. Then why do equations that work for energy work for matter as well. I can show the wavelength and frequency of a baseball, even if it is at rest. Also, how do you explain the bond enthalpies of atoms? I'm not saying you are wrong, mind you.... I'm just asking questions. Originally posted by Master_Keralys Seriously, I don't mind disagreeing with you, but I think you're getting way too stressed over a forum, dude. You should have been here for his first 50 or so posts! Originally posted by Master_Keralys Heat energy is not usable by any known process. That's because heat isn't energy. Energy is the capacity to do work or transfer heat. Heat is simply the effect of energy being transferred to a colder object from hotter one. But this energy transfer does have the capacity to be used. And it is. Every time you make a pot of coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys Energy is not matter. Care to disagree with me? Then you're disagreeing with everyone from Newton to Einstein to Hawking and Witten. Incidently, it was Einstein that postulated that energy and matter are equivalent (Einstein, 1935). Eddington pointed out that we treat mass and energy as different only because we use different units to measure them. By introducing time as a unit of measure, the distinction disappears. The use of 'light-years' for instance. Torretti (1983) stated, "If a kitchen refrigerator can extract mass from a given jug of water and transfer it by heat radiation or convection to the kitchen wall behind it, a trenchant metaphysical distinction between the mass and the energy of matter does seem far fetched." He also referred to the distinction between matter and energy as an illusion that was "the convenient but deceitful act of the mind by which we abstract time and space from nature." Feynman (1989) pointed out that in experiments in which matter was annihilated -converted totally to energy (20 kiloton atomic explosions), the principle of mass-energy equivalence has been tested quite thouroughly. According to these interpretations, the philosophical lesson of E_= mc^2 is that we should no longer regard the world as consisting of two types of stuff: matter and energy. Instead, the world is composed of only one type of fundamental stuff. Also, noting your distaste for internet sources, I used some physical ones of peer-reviewed nature. Einstein, A. (1935) "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy," Am. Math. Soc. Bul. 41:223-230 Einstein, A. (1935) "Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy," Am. Math. Soc. Bul. 41:223-230 Feynman, R. P. (1989) The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Torretti, R. (1983) Relativity and Geometry, New York Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 26, 2003 Share Posted October 26, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys This is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sorry to be possibly rude, but seriously. You're the one who needs a high school physics book. It is theorized - that is, not shown to be fact at all y If I believed in god I would be saying OH MY GOD... Now I know I have nothing to discuses with you. What can you possibly know if you think a basic scientific fact is still a theory that was a fact before you or I were born. Now you are making your argument out of your own pieced together knowledge. That has more than a few holes. My idea revolves around a fact and your argument revolves around telling me a excepted fact is an obscure theory... I think this stems from you lack of knowledge of the word answer. I could be wrong? I should have saw this when discussing that with you. From what I can tell you have a terrible problem with common sence. Originally posted by SkinWalker You should have been here for his first 50 or so posts! I think I have gotten allot better. I would have already been banned 2 or 3 times by now.... Yes this is just a forum, but this is also a serious subject in a serious discussion forum. The fact that it is a Star Wars themed forum has nothing to do with it, but that some people that are debating in it shouldn't be. On this case I would say all my ducks are in a row; however, I would stress that your's are a little out of place. "Master_Keralys" I'm not sure if you want to argue this with "SkinWalker" be my guess.. He always has a ready source of facts to back what he says up if you ask for them... I have the problem of expecting others to know common stuff. I asked all the people I worked with last night if they knew what the conservation of matter was out of like 30 some people. Only 2 people knew what it was. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted October 28, 2003 Author Share Posted October 28, 2003 My point is that energy and matter might be interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of either in the universe. I was also angered by the fact that CJ insisted on arguing that energy was made out of matter... it's not. At their basic level, they are made of the same component - which is why they can be interchanged. But they're not made out of each other. They're made out of something more fundamental. I argued that string theory was only a theory, not yet shown to be fact. That's not even proven now, and it was only proposed a few years before I was born. Skin, I see what you're saying; I think I wasn't clear enough in what I was saying. There is a difference between being interchangeable and being the same thing. That was what I was trying to say earlier in this post. I beg to differ with your last point in your second to last post. Heat is energy. It is the least ordered form of energy, actually. And, actually, when making coffee, the heat is simply a byproduct that we can use. It's not usable, though, for chemical reactions - only reactions within a particular chemical, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but heart is the byproduct of exergonic reactions; all the books I've ever read have said that it is the lowest form of energy and is unusable by known reactions. I'd be happy to shown wrong; that's just what I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos Jack Posted October 28, 2003 Share Posted October 28, 2003 Originally posted by Master_Keralys My point is that energy and matter might be interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that there is an infinite amount of either in the universe. I take it you still don't understand "conservation of matter." Originally posted by Master_Keralys I was also angered by the fact that CJ insisted on arguing that energy was made out of matter... it's not. It isn't? Keep being angered here because you don't know what you are talking about.... Originally posted by Master_Keralys At their basic level, they are made of the same component - which is why they can be interchanged. I thought you said they weren't made of the same stuff? Originally posted by Master_Keralys But they're not made out of each other. They're made out of something more fundamental. "something more fundamental" lol Originally posted by Master_Keralys I argued that string theory was only a theory, not yet shown to be fact. That's not even proven now, and it was only proposed a few years before I was born. What does this have to do with "conservation of matter." The string theory isn't very old; however, "the law of conservation of matter" is. The String theroy..... http://superstringtheory.com/history/history4.html The law of conservation of matter and energy..... make sure to read the highlited print at the bottom.. http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/Generalchemistry/Energy/LawofConservation/LawofConservation.htm To give you a break.. I understand what your saying about the universe running out of usable energy "I have from the beging", but that is a god fearing mans clutch on science. That is a hold out for them to say the universe had a beginning and will have a end. If it began than it must have had a creator. The simple problem here is if all our knowledge is saying that then we are automatically wrong we haven't used the tools in the right way. We are making a fundamental error in reasoning that has led us to this. With all our knowledge of math and science we have made a big mistake. There is something that we don't understand and have left out. Possibly, because we don't know about it. There are all kinds of things that we don't understand Black holes Dark matter, and Dark energy.. We aren't at a point were we can say there is a beginning and end by a long shot. We must rule out the fantasy of god from science. To think allot of scientist don't want to have to say there isn't a god. We have subconsciously lead ourselves back into a hole saying god did it. So when you said this.. Originally posted by Master_Keralys As far as the concept of an oscillating universe goes, sorry Cosmos Jack, but what we know of physics rules that out. and I typed this... Originally posted by Cosmos Jack "Sorry Mr. Columbus, but from what we know of the world if you sail out to far you will fall of the edge. I made a perfect point. At our state of physics we know as much as people knew about the shape of the world back then. So you can keep thinking the world is flat "that the universe has a beginning and a end" and that god created it all you want. I really don't care. I'm Sorry I make you so mad, but it seems it's more, because you don't know what you are arguing about. Than what I am saying.. Either way I don't makeing people like you mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Keralys Posted November 1, 2003 Author Share Posted November 1, 2003 I'm not getting what you're saying by conservation of matter. The way it has been taught to me, it means that there is the same output of matter in a reaction as there was input. That's it. The same thing goes for energy. This in no way implies that the two are infinite, or that they are infinitely reusable (at least, energy isn't, though matter is). Maybe the problem is that I'm not understanding what you're trying to get across. Energy is not made of matter. Nor is matter made of energy. Saying that they are both made from another, more fundamental component is not absurd; it is quite logical. Your comment about me not saying they were made of the same thing is, quite frankly, stupid. I did not say that. I said (and you quoted me as saying) that energy is not made of matter. I later said that both are made of something else. The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less. That's a direct quote from your website. Duh. I've said that exact thing all along. My argument has always been that the amount of usable energy in the universe is decreasing. That's what the second law of thermodynamics says. Perhaps you could explain what is so funny about the phrase "something more fundamental"? I'm just not sure what you're laughing at. Originally posted by Cosmos Jack The simple problem here is if all our knowledge is saying that then we are automatically wrong we haven't used the tools in the right way. We are making a fundamental error in reasoning that has led us to this. With all our knowledge of math and science we have made a big mistake. There is something that we don't understand and have left out. Okay, whoa! You're saying, pretty much, that all of our knowledge is wrong because it doesn't line up with your theory. So any proof we have is, in essence wrong, because it doesn't line up with what you're saying. Maybe I'm reading this wrong; if so please explain, but to me it looks like you're saying that you're right regardless of what our evidence shows. Originally posted by Cosmos Jack I made a perfect point. At our state of physics we know as much as people knew about the shape of the world back then. So you can keep thinking the world is flat "that the universe has a beginning and a end" and that god created it all you want. I really don't care. I'm not the only one arguing this perspective. Others, including an agnostic and (I think) an atheist (Homuncul?) are arguing the same perspective. So saying it's a "God" excuse is rather lame. I would say that you are wrong about Columbus. It had been known by well over a thousand years (closer to 1500, I think) that the world was round. Actual scientists knew that, that is. The common people may not have, but they weren't that informed anyway. And I've never claimed we know all there is to know. I'm simply arguing from the perspective of what we do know. We can only truly create good theories from what we know, never from what we don't. I can say "We don't know that our world isn't the exact center of the universe, so it is," but that's bad logic. Instead, we go from what we do know: "Our would does not appear to be the center of the universe, so it's probably not". Mind you that's a pretty radical example, but I think it gets across my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 I'm not sure how this thread got to be the "Matter and Energy" thread, but I suppose these are fundamental concepts to understanding the origin of the universe(s). Let me try to be clearer than I was earlier in this thread and perhaps bring you guys together. Matter is that which has substance and takes up space. Gases, plants/animals, rocks, dust, pure elements, etc. Energy is simply the capacity to do work and can either be kinetic or potential. It is contained in all matter. Energy by itself is not matter, but it cannot exist without matter being present. A diatomic hydrogen molecule has energy. 103 kcal to be exact. Einstein theorized, and later researchers successfully tested the theory, that energy can be transformed into matter. Some energy is already matter, such as radiation energy. This energy is made up of particles such as α, β or γ particles. Light exhibits properties of both waves and particles. Light is another form of energy. Atomic energy is released from the nucleus of an atom at the expense of its mass. If matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it must be transformed. It becomes a new type of matter called energy in the form of particles that are radiated. Another type of energy is heat energy. This is an aggregated form of energy created by the motion of atoms. Atoms are matter. Heat is energy that is commonly useful. It easily expands gases and other matter, initiates chemical reactions (chemical energy is another energy form), and is transferred by conduction, convection, and radiation. The formula for the total amount of heat absorbed or released by a substance is: Heat energy (J) = specific heat x mass x ∇t A common use for heat energy involves its uses with water. The more heat energy availble to water, the faster it's molecules are excited. By taking water in it's liquid state, containing it in a vessel then applying heat, steam can be produced. Since the gaseous form of water will require more space than the liquid form, pressure can be built and utilized to push a piston. Heat energy made consumer capitalists out of midwestern Americans by allowing trains to deliver goods in a matter of days rather than weeks or months. Perhaps I don't follow why you say heat is the "lowest form of energy and is unusable by known reactions." Heat is very useful in initiating chemical reactions and producing work. It is true that heat is a by-product in many other reactions or physical operations of physics and chemistry, but that is true of many other forms of energy as well. Atomic energy releases particles, lasers produce light, radiation produces light, etc. It is also true that scientists see the total amount of matter in the universe as finite and fixed. However, it is infinitely reuseable. This is because matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Energy is infinately abundant in that it will exist as long as there is matter. Most theorists of the origin of the universe agree that much of the matter we observe in our universe was likely the result of changes in Hydrogen to the other elements on the periodic table. One electron orbiting one proton. Perhaps Helium was present as well, since it introduces a new particle: the neutron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.