universe
| 15-03-2021 18:16 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
Swan wrote:Into the Night wrote: Good for him. He is likewise making claim to God existing without a universe to exist in. |
| 15-03-2021 18:22 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
keepit wrote: I have yet to meet anyone who was "always wrong" or "always right". For example, even you have gotten one thing right during your time here. |
| 15-03-2021 19:03 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
Swan wrote: I wouldn't say that they are necessarily mindless, but I would say that such people are ignorant of (or choosing to ignore or otherwise not take seriously) not only the potential short and long term issues (some temporary, others permanent) with this particular jab, but also the issues that are already known at the present moment, including but not at all limited to: various allergic reactions anaphylactic shock cytokine storm various auto immune issues bell's palsy feeling like absolute shite after the 2nd dose of the jab death Those are enough issues, and are occurring often enough, to give me pause about receiving this particular jab. Then again, not everybody does their own thorough independent research on such matters, as I do. I would be willing to bet that many people mistakenly believe that this shot works either identically or similar to a flu shot. It doesn't. A flu shot works by introducing either inactivated or weakened flu viruses into one's system. That's not what any version of the covid jab is doing. The Moderna/Pfizer versions are inserting mRNA "instructions" into one's body, which instructs one's system to create the particular spike protein that is found on the covid virus. The J&J version is instead inserting an adenovirus containing "instructions" that will create the covid spike protein. Note that NONE of these are making use of the covid virus itself, as flu shots do with flu viruses. In short, I will not be receiving this jab. |
| 15-03-2021 19:12 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
The fact that God created our universe implies that He lives in (among other places) universes besides the one we are familiar with. In other words, universes made of stuff that doesn't interact with very much with our electrons, neutrinos, and quarks I guess to comment on this issue one has to be adept in understanding figures of speech and the fact that words can have more than one meaning. |
| 15-03-2021 19:31 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14458) |
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:One would note that God is the only potential observer from an external inertial frame of reference. This is where I have trouble going down your path. The only view that makes sense to me is that a universe, such as the one we are in, represents the limit of what we would be able to observe, that we call "nature" wherein the laws of physics apply. Just as the earth is comprised of many climates and many temperatures, the universe is comprised of many inertial frames of reference that all nonetheless obey the laws of physics while collectively demonstrating Einstein's Relativity. As such I see no difference between the observable and the unobservable; whatever we observe is obviously observable universe and we assume that all observations apply to those places we have not observed. For purposes of discussion I group all the inertial frames of reference within the universe, i.e. internal frames of reference as housing all the internal oberservers within the universe. It just so happens that all of the observers of concern at the present time are humans and we all reside on earth in the same inertial frame of reference (technically those who are in orbit and those on the moon are in different reference frames but the difference is essentially as negligible as someone's watch being a second or two fast). This complicates discussion to the extent that no human has any cross-inertial-frame-of-reference experience ... but that matters little. An external observer, on the other hand, is an observer residing outside nature and that is undefined as far as I can tell. We have no reports/information from outside the universe and no human has any extra-universe experience. MY BELIEF: Many of the laws of physics underpinning our universe, e.g. constant of gravity, black body laws, others, were created by our universe coming into being. Time is a concept that I cannot fathom in the absence of any events and I don't see how there could be "time" prior to the existence of the universe. Ergo an external observer would not be "observing" in the traditional manner, i.e. on the basis of some timeline in some traditional frame of reference following the laws of physics. gfm7175 wrote: Now, let's reduce the scope of this discussion for a bit, before bringing it back into the big picture: If #1 would instead be referring to "Earth", then #2 would be referring to viewing Earth from "the outside", such as from somewhere within space, rather than #1 which would be akin to viewing Earth from "the inside", from somewhere within Earth itself. So why is this somehow special/different from this ... ?  ... or this ?  ... or this ?  gfm7175 wrote: You, rather, are positing the following: Yes, you have captured the essence of my view. gfm7175 wrote: The issue here is that there is no such thing as being "outside of the universe". Not quite. The fact that we can write the words "outside the universe" means that there is such a concept ... just that it is not defined. Nobody knows what it is or what it means because nobody has that experience. To say that it is not possible to be outside the universe is to say that "outside the universe" is, in fact, defined and not within the range of possibilities. gfm7175 wrote: Universe is an all inclusive term, Not in that sense, just like "uniform" doesn't include all clothing. "Universe" is a term for "everything that we are considering within a given context" and is used in mathematics (set theory) to denote the set of all things (in question). I can quite certainly refer to other universes out there, and to the potential of two or more universes colliding, for example. I don't know if it is the case or not but I can certainly discuss the matter as a possibility. Does that mean that we now have to find a different word for "universe?" It's kind of the same concept as "network." If two networks become interconnected, do we still have two networks? (Answer: yes we do). Ergo, an internal observer in one universe is clearly an external observer to another universe ... of course presuming that there is/are one or more other universes and that observation is possible of one from the other. Into the Night sort of combines the concept of heaven (where God resides) with the universe (nature) and declares the "universe" (in the sense that you were using it as omni-inclusive) to be omni-infinite in time and dimension. Nonetheless, in such a model, two such universes riding towards each other along additional common dimensions could very well collide ... of course presuming the existence of those additional common dimensions. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-03-2021 20:27 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21645) |
gfm7175 wrote:Into the Night wrote: It's not as popularly accepted as the Theory of the Big Bang for some reason. Both are religions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-03-2021 20:28 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
gfm7175 wrote:keepit wrote: Bingo. You caught him red handed in bulverism cookie jar. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-03-2021 20:30 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
itn, The "Heavens and the Earth" is a figure of speech for OUR universe. |
| 15-03-2021 20:30 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: So you are arguing the Universe is not universal. Yeah...typical kind of paradox you wander into. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-03-2021 20:32 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
More semantics argument itn. |
| 15-03-2021 20:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: You really ought to learn at least a bit of Hebrew before making pronouncements like this. Again, you forgot that one of my hobbies is eytomology. 'The Heavens' is a translation. Shamayim describes a state, and possibly a location where this state exists. The root word 'mayim' means 'water'. 'Shamayim' means 'like water', meaning it flows everywhere, like a flood. The Jews used this word often to describe the sky. The sky is not the Universe. Indeed we can't see much of anything in the sky except blue, clouds, the Moon, and the Sun. During the night we can see more stars, particularly our own Milky Way galaxy, but that again is not the Universe. The Earth is, of course, a specific place. The phrase is not a 'figure of speech'. It is a translation from Hebrew text. Nowhere does the bible describe that God created the Universe. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 15-03-2021 20:44 |
| 15-03-2021 20:40 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU are doing. I am simply pointing it out (again). It is YOU that is trying to describe a Universe that is not universal. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-03-2021 20:42 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
Regardless of what language you use, a figure of speech is a figure of speech. I think i explained in my post an easy way to interpret the various meanings of the word "universe". Particularly the words "a universe made of stuff that doesn't interact with our stuff (electrons, neutrinos, quarks) very much. Edited on 15-03-2021 20:48 |
| 15-03-2021 20:44 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: It is not a figure of speech. It is a translation. Semantics fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 15-03-2021 20:45 |
| 15-03-2021 20:50 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
Somehow the idea of a translation containing a figure of speech seems elementary. Why don't you like it? |
| 15-03-2021 20:54 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: It is not a figure of speech. It is a translation. Semantics fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-03-2021 21:01 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
Like i've said many times, you're a waste of time. |
| 15-03-2021 22:19 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
keepit wrote: I was the one who mentioned that scripture. keepit wrote: You still haven't described for us any of these other "known" universes of which you speak... |
| 15-03-2021 22:21 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458) |
keepit wrote: ... like getting you to detail the other universes that you know? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-03-2021 23:35 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
uhhh,,,,,uhhh. Well, i don't think i can right at the moment except to say that they are made of stuff that doesn't interact with our stuff very often. |
| 15-03-2021 23:50 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458) |
keepit wrote:uhhh,,,,,uhhh. Well, i don't think i can right at the moment except to say that they are made of stuff that doesn't interact with our stuff very often. All that means is that you need to post a retraction to Into the Night for having misspoken this: keepit wrote: . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-03-2021 00:17 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
keepit wrote: Was one of your college professors, a Dr. Timothy Leary? Remember reading about some of his exploration/experimentation with alternative realities, universes. Some of his test subjects, never fully returned... |
| 16-03-2021 00:33 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
The important thing to remember is that there is no fence with a sign out there which says, "Nothing can exist beyond this sign." No sign, no fence. Yes, more stuff but not made of the same stuff. |
| 16-03-2021 00:55 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
keepit wrote: A lot of 'stuff', only exists in deranged minds... Just because you can imagine something, doesn't make it so. You call it 'fiction', in what I write. Some people struggle to keep facts, and fiction, separate. There are many things, we pretty much have to simply accept on faith. Does always mean these things are accurate, or even true, just that it works well enough, until we find a better explanation, or way to describe. |
| 16-03-2021 01:15 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
I see your point harvey. |
| 16-03-2021 03:10 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458) |
keepit wrote: The important thing to remember is that ... ... you don't know. You just don't know. There might be a phenomenon that prevents anything from being beyond it. There might be only one infinite universe. Any claims by you asserting omniscience is just more of your boolsch't. ... and you certainly have a lot of boolsch't. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-03-2021 03:33 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
I guess you could say that i BELIEVE there are more universes than this one. BTW, most cosmologists, astronomers, etc believe there are other universes. It kind of goes along the inflationary big bang and quantum mechanics. |
| 16-03-2021 04:01 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2935) |
I have refrained thus far from commenting on this subject, but here's my 2 cents... I haven't the brainpower of a gfm, an IBdaMann, an Into the Night, or even a Harvey.. What I do BELIEVE is that no human has the capacity to fully comprehend this subject. All we can understand is boundaries. Everything we know and experience has boundaries....a beginning and an end, a life and death, a time period, or a distance. All things on Earth have boundaries. What we cannot comprehend is something that has always been, that goes on forever. Even if there is nothing...the void of space is still there, has always been there, and must always be there. I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars under an open range South Dakota sky. It was amazing. I was trying to imagine deep space and forever. The moment I realized my brain would never comprehend this was the same moment I realized I was the smartest chump sitting on a log anywhere. |
| 16-03-2021 04:42 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458) |
GasGuzzler wrote:I haven't the brainpower of a gfm, an IBdaMann, an Into the Night, or even a Harvey.. I submit that in an instance such as this one, the polite wording would be "much less a Harvey." GasGuzzler wrote: I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars under an open range South Dakota sky. It was amazing. I was trying to imagine deep space and forever. The moment I realized my brain would never comprehend this was the same moment I realized I was the smartest chump sitting on a log anywhere. I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars out in some mountain forest. It was amazing. It was awesome. The moment I realized that what I was looking at was where all those stars were millions of years ago and that I wouldn't be able to point to where they are today, ... was the same moment that I realized I was smarter than most people looking up into the nighttime sky. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-03-2021 15:25 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
keepit wrote: You have the ability to search the entire universe at the same precise moment in time? keepit wrote: You are speaking gibberbabble. |
| 16-03-2021 16:02 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
keepit wrote: ... and if you believe this on a faith basis, then that's fine by me. Where the problem arises is when you say that we know other universes exist, yet you're unable to describe any of them or make any of them apparent. keepit wrote: So? |
| 16-03-2021 16:21 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
gfm, It's not "gibberbabble" as you say. It's just not something you're familiar with. It's actually pretty much standard thinking that i got from reading cosmology. I'd do my own thinking on this stuff but i don't have my own Hubble telescope or my own Large Hadron Collider. |
| 16-03-2021 16:25 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2935) |
IBdaMann wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:I haven't the brainpower of a gfm, an IBdaMann, an Into the Night, or even a Harvey.. I get what you're saying. No disrespect intended Harvey! However, I never understood the "much less". Would that not imply that Harvey has much less brain brain power than the others mentioned? Seems even worse! GasGuzzler wrote: I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars under an open range South Dakota sky. It was amazing. I was trying to imagine deep space and forever. The moment I realized my brain would never comprehend this was the same moment I realized I was the smartest chump sitting on a log anywhere. IBdaMann wrote:I remember as a kid sitting by a fire, staring at the stars out in some mountain forest. It was amazing. It was awesome. Awe crap. I hope it wasn't the same night. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
| 16-03-2021 16:27 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2935) |
keepit wrote: I don't think so Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 16-03-2021 17:24 |
| 16-03-2021 16:46 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14458) |
GasGuzzler wrote: However, I never understood the "much less". Would that not imply that Harvey has much less brain brain power than the others mentioned? Seems even worse! No, the "much less" does not refer to the person in question but to the speaker's relative inability in the matter. The person in question is "better" relatively. For example, let's say that English grammar just is not my forté, I would say "Id have trouble proofreading policy documents, much less become a professional speechwriter!" GasGuzzler wrote: Awe crap. I hope it wasn't the same night. Not unless you were that kid sitting next to me getting all confused by there being so much stuff in the nighttime sky being so unimaginably far away. I'm sure that wasn't you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-03-2021 17:38 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3074) |
Gas, It's not a socialist plot to take over your mind. |
| 16-03-2021 18:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote:Bulverism fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-03-2021 18:56 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: A vague non-answer. Try again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-03-2021 18:57 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
HarveyH55 wrote:keepit wrote: The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-03-2021 18:57 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21645) |
keepit wrote: The definition of 'Universe'. There's your sign. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
Join the debate universe:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The Eternal Law Rule Of The Universe Is Desire & Existence | 0 | 12-07-2021 14:22 |