|
|
Post by shin on Feb 8, 2007 21:39:53 GMT -5
Are you NOT understanding the words I'm typing? I DONT know what caused the Big Bang. That's what I'm saying. It is UNKNOWN. Nobody on the planet knows what caused it. How many times and in how many ways do I have to say that? Then how about Pineapple upside down cake? Do you think that started the universe in motion? See my point shin. Just a dash of common sense allows us to rule out certain things as the cause of the Big Bang. |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 8, 2007 21:57:36 GMT -5
It's not the same as gravity, dude. It's not common sense, it's what you believe and no matter how hard you believe it doesn't constitute proof. Well, if you wanna get freaky you could say that there is nothing that can be proven. You could say that you cant even prove that you actually exist. But let's be realistic. Man has been blessed with the gift of conscious existence. We can percieve our universe around us and have thought about it, organize these thoughts and make judgements about it. That's how we are able to exist. It is how we can walk down a staircase or produce model-Ts on an assembly line or hunt pheasant. So my point is that at some point we have to rely on common sense, we have to use logic. We have to create words for what we want to communicate. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 8, 2007 21:59:37 GMT -5
Do I really need to say it again?
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 8, 2007 22:07:47 GMT -5
Do I really need to say it again? Yes you do. You see the proof is bascially the same proof you have to show the existance of gravity or dark energy or dark matter or the invisible Bowie-Zeppelin Line. You may not be able to see or smell these things, but you know they exist by seeing the affect they have on ather matter in the physical universe. Same goes for that Unknown that put the universe in motion. We cant see that unknown, or smell it, or even actually conceptualize it, but we know it existed because of its affect on the matter and energy that makes up our universe--which is to say that it put it all in motion. I mean, specifically, which part of this do you not understand or disagree with??? It's really not that hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 8, 2007 22:11:03 GMT -5
Look, just because it makes perfect sense to you does not make it true. You can explain your theory as much as you like, personally I have no problem with it in itself, but you have no proof. None. Zero.
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 8, 2007 22:17:50 GMT -5
Look, just because it makes perfect sense to you does not make it true. You can explain your theory as much as you like, personally I have no problem with it in itself, but you have no proof. None. Zero. The proof is in the fact that the universe is in motion. And this has been scientifically proven. Tell me, if this thing that started teh universe in motion never existed then how is it possible for the universe to BE in motion? The answer is: It's not. |
|
|
|
Post by strat-0 on Feb 8, 2007 22:19:44 GMT -5
Do I really need to say it again? Say it loud and say it proud! The Moment of Singularity, my dear Mr. Mantis:  It's really not that hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 8, 2007 22:20:28 GMT -5
Look, just because it makes perfect sense to you does not make it true. You can explain your theory as much as you like, personally I have no problem with it in itself, but you have no proof. None. Zero. The proof is in the fact that the universe is in motion. And this has been scientifically proven. Tell me, if this thing that started teh universe in motion never existed then how is it possible for the universe to BE in motion? The answer is: It's not. I'm done. You're a nutbar. |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 8, 2007 22:23:50 GMT -5
Look, just because it makes perfect sense to you does not make it true. You can explain your theory as much as you like, personally I have no problem with it in itself, but you have no proof. None. Zero. The proof is in the fact that the universe is in motion. And this has been scientifically proven. Tell me, if this thing that started teh universe in motion never existed then how is it possible for the universe to BE in motion? The answer is: It's not. At least one version of Super String Theory has an explanation for what caused the big bang. It involves "branes" in the multi-verse bumping into one another, and the resulting disturbances manifest themselves as "universes" including our own. There's math to support it, but so far the hard science observations and/or experiments aren't sophisticated enough to verify or leave open this idea. There are bunches of good books on this subject, including some that attack SST as having no hard proof, and therefore being tantamount to a religion rather than to science. But it's important to note that SST, in all of its permutations, neither postulates nor requires anything like a "soul" to explain either the universe or what's in it. Really, you're better off sticking with James Brown and Marvin Gaye if you're trying to establish proof of soul. But since they're both down in the cold, cold, ground at this point, you might just establish that soul is dead and buried. |
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 8, 2007 22:24:07 GMT -5
The proof is in the fact that the universe is in motion. And this has been scientifically proven. Tell me, if this thing that started teh universe in motion never existed then how is it possible for the universe to BE in motion? The answer is: It's not. I'm done. You're a nutbar. They said the same thing about Galileo...except they used the Italian word for nutbar, which is "cajonieolio" |
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 8, 2007 22:26:29 GMT -5
I'm done. You're a nutbar. They said the same thing about Galileo... No they didn't. They said that Galileo was politically dangerous b/c he challenged the authority of the Church, but the truth of his observations were actually widely accepted even during his lifetime. Jay Gould wrote a great book shortly before his death which dealt in part with this myth. |
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Feb 8, 2007 22:29:19 GMT -5
This is as simple as I cam make it-
The universe is in motion = true
Something caused to be in motion = true
We don't know what it was = true
It should be acknowledge as the soul = opinion
|
|
|
|
Post by loudaab on Feb 8, 2007 22:33:19 GMT -5
The proof is in the fact that the universe is in motion. And this has been scientifically proven. Tell me, if this thing that started teh universe in motion never existed then how is it possible for the universe to BE in motion? The answer is: It's not. At least one version of Super String Theory has an explanation for what caused the big bang. It involves "branes" in the multi-verse bumping into one another, and the resulting disturbances manifest themselves as "universes" including our own. There's math to support it, but so far the hard science observations and/or experiments aren't sophisticated enough to verify or leave open this idea. There are bunches of good books on this subject, including some that attack SST as having no hard proof, and therefore being tantamount to a religion rather than to science. But it's important to note that SST, in all of its permutations, neither postulates nor requires anything like a "soul" to explain either the universe or what's in it. ken I actually believe in string theory myself, but that's usually a bit too deep for most people that I try to whip out my 'existance of the soul' schtick on. But even so. Lets's say colliding branes did cause our universe. We still have to ask ourselves, "Well, what caused these branes?" What caused them to be in motion? Whatever it is, it is an Unknown--and going back to my original defintion of Soul, the one that the ancient Greeks first defined--as long as there is an Unknown behind all of the innerworkings of the universe and the multi-verses, then we still have to define that as the Soul. |
|
|
|
Post by limitdeditionlayla on Feb 8, 2007 22:40:26 GMT -5
Listen, dude, I have no beef with you & this thread is silly.
However, I must comment about your last post re string theory. When I was 5 years old they told my parents I was a genius (seriously. I had an outrageous IQ & my dad took me out for ice-cream. I'm no longer considered a genius. Well, if you compared me to children I would be).
Anyway, I used to be a genius & I used to smoke weed like every day. And even then I couldn't figure out HOW the universe came to be. So you're certainly not going to be the one to do it. ok.
fwiw - when you're discussing physics, its improper to talk about concepts like the 'soul'. Thats like having a discussion about thermodynamics & fairies at the same time. No good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Feb 8, 2007 22:40:52 GMT -5
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"  |
|
