Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by D007, May 3, 2012.
Turns out even Nothing has something.
"90% of our mass comes from empty space."
IIRC, the zero point field came into existence with the universe.
However Roger Penrose of Oxford published a paper last year claiming that there are circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background that indicate blackhole predate the big bang. Didn't we have a thread on that here at some point? Primordial black holes or sumptin
OOh I did not know that. Now there is somethign that could create a universe..Maybe it was a white hole, from another dimension, spilling into ours..Who knows, maybe every time a universe has it's "big rip" it pops open another door, in a different universe and tosses it's mass into it..
The paradox of that stamenet being. How can anything "predate" the big bang.. "If" (big if) there was nothing..lol
Thats how my wife got pregnant.
I find myself, trying to logically comprehend, how that could "actually" happen. I am in too deep..
It's like the son of a gun myth, on mythbusters.. XD
'Predate' is probably not the best word, as anything that occurred outside of the universe we live in is not temporally linked to us, here, in our universe. But it suffices as a crude explanation.
It all depends on how the universe/multiverse is structured, dimensionally. And how you interpret it.
If our universe is the result of a 'momentary' collision between two higher dimensional 'branes', which caused the big bang, those are just words, we can't visualize it. The equations are just 'words', we can't visualize them/encompass them in our minds. The best we can do is come up with some kind of simple visualization, some analogue, of what is actually being described, which inevitably leaves out volumes and volumes of information about what is actually going on, but which we can't ever fully encompass ourselves.
All we can do is understand and encompass is the 'analogue' big picture 'at a glance'.
Not all the 'digital' details down to the Planck scale. We can only look at those individually or a few at a time.
most scientific theories are in fact just theories, not fact,
they are just ideas that might fit what we are observing,
also crappy the way modern science only really funds the investigation of the theories that fit the status quo, making it hard for offbeat ground breaking research to immerge,
Lol kinda like talking about, time travel paradoxes..
Agreed on that note. I quoted it earlier but it applies again.
Einstein said "the only thing, that interferes with my learning, is my education.."
The status quo...
I got a couple for yas.
Einstein did say energy can only change form and it cannot be destroyed. Can memories be said to be energy?
Wouldn't that increase the mass of an object? Maybe not visually, but dimensionally?
I know This may sound crazy.. Might even freak a couple people out.. But imagine this.
Dark matter is actually the souls of the dead.. And since more and more things multiply and come to life.. The same is said for when they die.
More souls are almost exponentially created, because more things, almost exponentially come to life..
Would kinda make sense, if there is enough death, to create the increasing expansion of the universe. But life doesn't necessarily mean a heartbeat..
Maybe just a protein, or even an element can die and leave a "soul" + it's physical decay..
No, not really.
No, because your mass would be the 'aggregate' of all those 'energies'.
Anyway, memories are not 'energy', they're networks of neural connections, those neural networks are chemically linked. There is no increase of mass, no pulling of energy out of the air or out of an imaginary zero-point source.
Dead spirits/souls as dark matter... well... it's not exactly original, I suppose you could call it an aggregate of modern science fiction tropes combined with modern spiritualism; a variation on Babylon 5 'metaphysics'.
I meant in regards to how crazy the things you have to say end up being..
Like when you talk about time travel paradoxes. It just gets very complicated and very confusing. You took the statement to literal.
Making opinions and calling them facts is not science.. You can't say memories have no energy. Nor can you factually say anything about what "aggregates" in the human body.
How could you or anyone possibly know? No one does. Neurosurgeons do NOT even closely understand the brain.. You do?
I believe memories exist in two states,One physical, one metaphysical. Potentially in two different dimensions.
But I don't call it fact. Just a theory, one that we have not even begun to explore.
Do you believe the extended presence of a person in a location, makes their physical/spiritual being, more connected to that location?
Some people would call that fact. Differences of opinion.
You don't believe in a spirit or soul then, you're saying?
I think it has the potential to exist. Saying "No it doesn't, just because I say so" Isn't a very scientific approach lol.
What you call "Zero" point I call the beginning of the universe. Isn't before the big bang supposedly "zero point" Nothing existing?
Seems we pulled a whole universe, out of that zero point.
Now you're the judge of what's original too? Lol Don't take the topic to serious k..
It's for fun.
lol so true
to add "bits" you either add or remove elementary particles or change the energy state which both change energy
the difference is not significant though. it's like saying the paper gets heavy because you write on it
dont mix science and religion.
if you have an experiment to test your theory, then run that experiment to confirm. and let other people come up with experiments on their own to disprove your theory. if it's not testable it's not science
I'm more interested in finding out about other species in the galaxy/universe, what they might look like, their world, society and WHAT ARE THEY DOING at the moment.
I sometimes look at the sky and say, Hell there's an Alien in some other planet light years away doing the same thing.
What if aliens are monitoring us using super-tiny-smaller-than nano devices that even the micro-est of the microscopes can't see.
What if Aliens are already in the contact with some governments/secret organizations(e.g. project serpo)
Is there already a Mass Effect Council-Esque society out there?
What If really we're actually created by Aliens and we are Aliens in our own earth. or mutated/uplifted by aliens from Monkey-stage(not trying to be conspiracy keanu or provoke a religious debate)
What if Jesus really was an alien and all his miracles were just Advanced Tech(again No religious meaning)
I am also concerned about the afterlife, what will happen to you after you die? Will you wake up again in a Familiar Place and someone say to you, Hey! you died in the game! and then everything comes back to you again and You Just Played an Advanced Video Game. like Matrix.
What will happen to your memories? Will they be stored somewhere in the Universe? like dark matter as someone said above??? I think everything that happens and that happened are somehow stored in the universe. (e.g) all those events, and memories, you can retrieve with proper knowledge.
Will you wake up again in baby/fetus form right after conception and reincarnate???
I have so many questions and those are just but a few. Reply to me with your ideas and opinions
and the only science question in here seems to be "and we are Aliens in our own earth". answer is per definition of "alien" we are not.
ask your favourite religion for the remaining answers. (i dont mean this offensive in any way. religion is great to answer such questions)
the better questions for science are "how.. ?"
not even science has an answer for "what if bulldozer were a fast processor. would intel go back into their spaceship and fly home?"
"All we are is dust in the wind dude" (from a wise philosopher)
In fact, so much as is being said in your post, it's not science at all. Asking questions and 'creating' answers is not science. Science must be made from testable theory. When you look to what may happen, it is science fiction or in the case of suppositions of an afterlife, you are in fact being non objective (being philosophical) by creating the premise that there is an afterlife.
As Wizzard said, if you place a belief in something without evidence, then religion is your best medicine. And that is not meant with offence. It's simply a necessity that scientific discussion requires both knowledge and validation, our own deaths defy both of those necessities.
Literally. Stars are made of dust and planets form from disks around stars. We are kinda made of stardust.
I'm curious, is a probability something that amounts to evidence if it is less than 100% and if so, how far below 100% does it have to drop before it ceases to be "evidence?".
You see, I always find it amusing that people talk in absolutes when there is no such animal - not in science certainly. In fact, one of the few places where one can claim to find certainty is in a system of religious belief. That's probably due to the fact that religion is so similar to other axiomatic systems, but I always find it to be an absolutely striking irony.
is that what you are looking for?
even if a mechanism "picks" completely randomly, you can still do science with it. for example radioactive decay is random, there is no magical decay clock in an atom. when applied to a large number of atoms that gives you the half life, which is a clearly defined value for each isotope
I'm vaguely familiar with things like stochastic modeling, linear and curvi-linear regression, yada, yada, but thanks for the tip. My point was that people think that science bestows absolute certainty when in fact it is based on an empirical model - the diametric opposite of the sort of axiomatic system that actually can create some limited degree of certainty.
It was just what I thought was an interesting observation. I wasn't trying to rattle anyone's cage.
Reality and science is/are analog which is a difficult concept in a society going digital. Nothing fits neatly into 0/1, yes/no, or +/- pockets
It seems so, but technically, the "quantum" in quantum mechanics actually means that you breaks things down into discrete packets - photons, electrons, etc. But at the same time, every "particle" also has a wave function that is used to describe it. So it's really both analog AND digital AT THE SAME TIME. I know I sound like a broken record, but I'm going to keep saying it until at least one other person here has a psychotic break.
My other self told myself "twilyth for president!"
Reality isn't real; it's what each individual perceives it to be. I am here AND there, constant, eternal, everlasting.
Separate names with a comma.