Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Patches OHoolahan

Most intelligent poster?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote]in my theory - as well as relating to the duality - humankind can also relate to the singularity, so it suggests that we enjoy simultaneous experiences of both states...in other words we are multidimensional beings...in terms of equal and opposites - we can conceive that the opposite of the big bang, could be a big crunch,,,and that therefore our physical universe could merely be experiencing and learning about these ''dual states'' of existence,,,something that humankind seemingly already knows of and can relate to (emotionally and intellectually) before it has happened (the big crunch)???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote]in my theory - as well as relating to the duality - humankind can also relate to the singularity, so it suggests that we enjoy simultaneous experiences of both states...in other words we are multidimensional beings...in terms of equal and opposites - we can conceive that the opposite of the big bang, could be a big crunch,,,and that therefore our physical universe could merely be experiencing and learning about these ''dual states'' of existence,,,something that humankind seemingly already knows of and can relate to (emotionally and intellectually) before it has happened (the big crunch)???[/quote]Yes, this could be true. However, for a theory to be valid, it must be testable, so you must be able to use your big crunch theory to predict the course of future events in this Universe - this is the acid test upon which all scientific knowledge is based.Obviously none of our predictive models are perfect; generally speaking, the more we limit the variables the more accurate our models tend to be. Remember, in physics, all differential equations are partial ones.Popper put the idea of the usefulness of a theory being connected to its accuracy of prediction very neatly in his falsifiability criterion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="ron obvious"]

Planck proposed the constant as a formal proposition to solve some observed anomalities regarding Black Body Radiation. Scroedinger adopted it to successfully describe an atomic model where the electrons can only exist in permitted energy states. I used to be able to derive it from E=h*frequency & the general (time dependent) wave equation solution, but I seem to have forgotten how lately.
I think I do rather more than 9 or 10 questions/episode of University Challenge, but I''ve never kept a tally. Biology & flags of all nations are my nemesis. Strangely, Literature is often my stromgest point.
Time could not have existed before the Big Bang, as there were no objects to change their spatial relationship & therefore nothing to measure.


[/quote]

Marty inspired me to keep count. Tonight, only counting answers where I was as quick as or quicker than the contestants, I got 28.
I''m quite pleased.



[/quote]

That sounds very good, I know I was nowhere near to that, plus I did the washing-up half way through! My home bankers are the music questions, well unless they are classical music questions, but I got 3 out of 4, well chuffed. Most of the stuff is way over my head. I must confess that this talk about the existence of time is a bit much for me, I find it interesting but hard to grasp the concepts, I am chemist not a physisist, still managed to get most of the chemistry question wrong on University challenge!

No, I agree that this is not a competition but I think people can be a bit harsh when people stray off the subject of football, although I think the subject of the existence of time is going off at quite some tangent. It''s just a bit of banter and you get to know more about fellow posters. I know who i''m turning to for my next physics conundrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="Marty"][quote user="astrodyne"][quote user="Marty"][quote user="Blainsey"]

 

Probably me.

3 A-Levels, two of which are in foreign languages

BA Hons in Political Science

PGCE in History

MA in Education

Case closed. lol.

 

[/quote]



I can top that, PhD, do I win? I know nowt about footy mind.

 

[/quote]

Is that PhD in blowing your own trumpet? What a sad thread this is.
[/quote]

 

I actually find it quite interesting, each to his/her own. There''s more to life than just football you know, I think a debate about the existence of time could be fun and probably a lot more contructive that endless debate about how crap our manager is.

[/quote]

I also think it''s interesting but it''s not a competition, I think.

I have two degrees that have never helped me professionally except when writing about music which I do for fun and enjoyment (there''s no serious money in it).  It''s a relaxation to me but (I think) it makes that job easier.

I''m fluent in a couple of languages which have, over the years, been of tremendous professional help and my wife used to work as a translator in Italy and that''s been really useful as well.  She has an arts degree but more importantly is the really skilled DIY operative in the household - the one who can look at the Chinese inspired instructions in "flat packed for easy home assembly" and say:  "Okay, I see." [:$]

"No, no, stop swearing.  You''ve got it the wrong way round. Look, for goodness sake, get out of the way."[+o(]

[/quote]

There are degrees and degrees - as you should well know being a clued-up journo with experience on the Daily Express.

OTBC

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BBB, please elaborate about the different types of degree! are you referring to those that take about 4 hours a week of study and those that pretty much take up the whole week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]

Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.
I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.
[/quote]

Not sure Ron that if we cannot know about something we can say it doesn''t exist. It just means we don''t at the moment have the tools to know. If we had the tools then we could be sure.

You cannot know what I had for lunch today, but that doesn''t mean I didn''t have lunch. Actually, I had a nice tuna sandwich.

YH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote]in my theory - as well as relating to the duality - humankind can also relate to the singularity, so it suggests that we enjoy simultaneous experiences of both states...in other words we are multidimensional beings...in terms of equal and opposites - we can conceive that the opposite of the big bang, could be a big crunch,,,and that therefore our physical universe could merely be experiencing and learning about these ''dual states'' of existence,,,something that humankind seemingly already knows of and can relate to (emotionally and intellectually) before it has happened (the big crunch)???[/quote]Yes, this could be true. However, for a theory to be valid, it must be testable, so you must be able to use your big crunch theory to predict the course of future events in this Universe - this is the acid test upon which all scientific knowledge is based.Obviously none of our predictive models are perfect; generally speaking, the more we limit the variables the more accurate our models tend to be. Remember, in physics, all differential equations are partial ones.Popper put the idea of the usefulness of a theory being connected to its accuracy of prediction very neatly in his falsifiability criterion.[/quote]sure - so if the universe began from a singularity, then potentially it could end that way???my understanding of current theory suggests the universe has moved into a post big bang phase - where its continued expansion is explained by the theory that dark matter is exerting a force upon the galaxies to literally push them apart from one another...however, another view has emerged - suggesting that maybe the supposed expansion of the universe has been mis-read by observers of data, and that possibly either the universe''s expansion has slowed, or even a contraction has began...as in its not always possibly to see immediately, when observing a car from distance, when its speed slows and stops...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]

Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.
I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.
[/quote]

Not sure Ron that if we cannot know about something we can say it doesn''t exist. It just means we don''t at the moment have the tools to know. If we had the tools then we could be sure.

You cannot know what I had for lunch today, but that doesn''t mean I didn''t have lunch. Actually, I had a nice tuna sandwich.

YH

[/quote]

Even so the question still remains. If you dropped your lunch in a forest and there was no one there to hear it, would anyone give a monkies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote]

Not sure Ron that if we cannot know about something we can say it doesn''t exist. It just means we don''t at the moment have the tools to know. If we had the tools then we could be sure.

You cannot know what I had for lunch today, but that doesn''t mean I didn''t have lunch. Actually, I had a nice tuna sandwich.

YH

[/quote]Absolutely. There may well be a googolplex of things of which we have no knowledge. All it means is that we can''t talk about things in any meaningful way unless we can fit them into a predictive model. Limiting yourself in this way is, of course, extremely boring. Mankind is perpetually inventing  imagined livesi lived in imagined Worlds. It''s what we do.It occurs to me that this activity is actually invaluable to our survival, because sometimes our imagination can give us greater insight into this, the phenomenal world. "Energy is the only life and is from the body

and reason is the bound and outward circumference of energy." "Energy is eternal delight!"                      Wm. Blake 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ncfc shaun and captain dejan both speak with their heads screwed on and only when they think necessary

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]So who won the most intelligent poster competition then ?  Have you all decided ?[/quote]

My moneys on Ron Obvious after getting nearly 30 questions right on Univeristy Challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Marty"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]So who won the most intelligent poster competition then ?  Have you all decided ?[/quote]

My moneys on Ron Obvious after getting nearly 30 questions right on Univeristy Challenge.

[/quote]

 

that''s University Challenge - i''m suffering from typing dyslexia again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Marty"]BBB, please elaborate about the different types of degree! are you referring to those that take about 4 hours a week of study and those that pretty much take up the whole week?[/quote]

I''ll leave it to our friends across the pond, marty.

Top Officials Hold Fake Degrees

Vince Gonzales Probes Diploma Mills And Some Federal Officials Who''ve Benefitted From Them


Phony College Diplomas

Vince Gonzales reports on an increasing number of people who are earning phony degrees from shady Internet sources, and reveals some top federal officials who have bogus diplomas on their resumes.



Answers.com

(CBS) They are safety engineers at nuclear power plants and biological weapons experts. They work at NATO headquarters, at the Pentagon and at nearly every other federal agency. And, as CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, they''re employees with degrees from phony schools.

"These degrees aren''t worth the paper that they''re printed on," says one insider, who asked CBS News to protect his identity.

The man worked at a so-called diploma mill where students pay a lot of money to get a degree online or through the mail for little or no work.

He says he''s not surprised to know that there are people working at almost every level of government who have degrees from these types of operations.

Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles Abell has a master''s from Columbus University, a diploma mill Louisiana shut down. Deputy Assistant Secretary Patricia Walker lists among her degrees, a bachelor''s from Pacific Western, a diploma mill banned in Oregon and under investigation in Hawaii.

CBS News requested interviews with both officials. The Pentagon turned us down, saying, "We don''t consider it an issue."

But using such a degree is a crime in some states. Alan Contreras cracks down on diploma mills for Oregon, a state that''s taken the lead on this issue.

"You don''t want somebody with a fake degree working in Homeland Security," says Contreras. "You don''t want somebody with a fake degree teaching your children or designing your bridges."

But we found employees with diploma mill degrees at the new Transportation Security Administration, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Departments of Treasury and Education, where Rene Drouin sits on an advisory committee. He has degrees from two diploma mills including Kensington University.

Kensington was forced out of business by officials in California and Hawaii. Another Kensington alum, Florida State Rep. Jennifer Carroll, just stepped down from the National Commission on Presidential Scholars.

Both Carroll and Drouin say they worked hard and thought their degrees were legitimate.

"The students are being sold a bill of goods that really don''t help them at all," the insider says. "There are slick people out there, and it''s happening every day, every minute probably somewhere in America."

And taxpayers have paid for bogus degrees some workers used for hiring, promotions and raises
.

[:-*]

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a nominee for MIP, I must say I am astnoished that throughout this discussion on the origins of the universe, nobody mentioned God and how He made it happen.  [:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.[/quote]

Not sure Ron that if we cannot know about something we can say it doesn''t exist. It just means we don''t at the moment have the tools to know. If we had the tools then we could be sure.

You cannot know what I had for lunch today, but that doesn''t mean I didn''t have lunch. Actually, I had a nice tuna sandwich.

YH

[/quote]Absolutely. There may well be a googolplex of things of which we have no knowledge. All it means is that we can''t talk about things in any meaningful way unless we can fit them into a predictive model. Limiting yourself in this way is, of course, extremely boring. Mankind is perpetually inventing  imagined livesi lived in imagined Worlds. It''s what we do.It occurs to me that this activity is actually invaluable to our survival, because sometimes our imagination can give us greater insight into this, the phenomenal world. "Energy is the only life and is from the body

and reason is the bound and outward circumference of energy." "Energy is eternal delight!"                      Wm. Blake [/quote]beautiful...and yeah, string theory and the like shows how science (or certain aspects of it) is looking beyond the rational for meaning in the imagination (irrationality) of man...but i would suggest that since we can relate emotionally beyond the duality, and conceive of possibilities that may exist beyond our physical universe - probably there is as much truth in this as we find in the confines of our physical world...so maybe its just a matter of abilities and interpretation,,,its about what seems real - and seemingly for blake and others like him, they appear to have a greater ability to knowingly access the multi-dimensional than what seems normal...having said this, i doubt that their connection is greater, but its just their ability to realise they have a connection and then understand it in a meaningful way (to them at least)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel compelled to point out that as far as any experimental evidence goes (which is after all, all we have to go on - anything else is just guessing blindly in the dark) - there isn''t enough matter in the universe for the gravitational force to create a ''big crunch'' type scenario, nor is there ''just the right amount'' to have a steady state universe. All the evidence, and everything we know about thermodynamics points towards an ever expanding universe, which will end in maximum entropy aka heat death. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[/url]Also String Theory / M Theory as it currently stands is nothing more than a clever mathemathical abstraction - it has no experimental backing. The main reason for this is that we do not currently have the technology to build machines/experiments that could falsify/verify it. This is not to say that is it wrong, but it is pointless for us, as laymen, to discuss it as a serious alternative to the Standard Model until such an experiment can be carried out.Also LGT, almost nothing you say on this topic has any scientific merit. I don''t mean this is a perjoritive way, if it helps you to understand your place in the cosmos in a philosophical sense, more power to you, but you can''t expect anyone else to take your theories seriously when all you are doing is stringing together scientific words without really using their scientific meaning.For example - You say that Blake has a connection to ''the multi-dimensional'', what does this mean? What form does this connection take? What evidence is there that any dimensions beyond the 4 we all know and love exist? How do you know what a ''normal'' connection is? How do we measure such things? and so on... Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory - none of these things can be adequately explained without delving into the mathematical side of things, and you certainly can''t just claim that human emotions have any real relationship to cosmological concepts without any evidence to back yourself up, thats not how science works.Apologies if this sounds too confrontational, but pseudoscience is one of my pet peeves."Isn''t it enough to see a beautiful garden, without having to think there are fairies at the bottom of it" - Douglas Adams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.6While I agree with you about the annoying proliferation of pseudo-science, I do feel you may be in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. All our models of the World are just that - models, &, from Set Theory, necessarily incomplete ones. The history of science is that of building better & more complete models, more & more able to answer that most urgent of questions: what happens next? (Economics is an excellent example of a pseudo-science; it attempts to form qualitative conclusions using conventional conservative mathematives in a patently non-conservative situation). The ability to imagine different models, different Worlds, is essential to any sort of progress.Hence it is quite possible that all sorts of things are occurring in all sorts of dimensions that do not presently affect us. There is nothing to stop things changing, however.M. R. James, shortly before he died, was asked if he believed there was any truth in his ghost stories. No, he replied, it was all a bit of fun & nonsense.Then he stopped & thought for a while & said"But we don''t know the rules ...."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="no. 6"]I feel compelled to point out that as far as any experimental evidence goes (which is after all, all we have to go on - anything else is just guessing blindly in the dark) - there isn''t enough matter in the universe for the gravitational force to create a ''big crunch'' type scenario, nor is there ''just the right amount'' to have a steady state universe. All the evidence, and everything we know about thermodynamics points towards an ever expanding universe, which will end in maximum entropy aka heat death. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe[/url]Also String Theory / M Theory as it currently stands is nothing more than a clever mathemathical abstraction - it has no experimental backing. The main reason for this is that we do not currently have the technology to build machines/experiments that could falsify/verify it. This is not to say that is it wrong, but it is pointless for us, as laymen, to discuss it as a serious alternative to the Standard Model until such an experiment can be carried out.Also LGT, almost nothing you say on this topic has any scientific merit. I don''t mean this is a perjoritive way, if it helps you to understand your place in the cosmos in a philosophical sense, more power to you, but you can''t expect anyone else to take your theories seriously when all you are doing is stringing together scientific words without really using their scientific meaning.For example - You say that Blake has a connection to ''the multi-dimensional'', what does this mean? What form does this connection take? What evidence is there that any dimensions beyond the 4 we all know and love exist? How do you know what a ''normal'' connection is? How do we measure such things? and so on... Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory - none of these things can be adequately explained without delving into the mathematical side of things, and you certainly can''t just claim that human emotions have any real relationship to cosmological concepts without any evidence to back yourself up, thats not how science works.Apologies if this sounds too confrontational, but pseudoscience is one of my pet peeves."Isn''t it enough to see a beautiful garden, without having to think there are fairies at the bottom of it" - Douglas Adams.[/quote]///6///i understand where you are coming from, but patently my theories fall outside conventional science, or even rational explanation, purely because they are largely untestable in our physical universe.  however, this does not equally preclude their validity under different criteria and tests, which are largely irrational...the future course of the universe is of course ''all acedemic'' and changes as new facts and discoveries come to light,,,for example, until new technology arrived a few years ago, to show the universe has slowed after the initial big bang, and was again accelerating under the force of dark matter - it was believed the big bang was the only game in town, and that the universe would expand forever...and whilst i do not doubt your belief that the big crunch is impossible, if you look at the wikipedia dark matter page, on your link - you will see another opinion...and as for dark matter - this so far is only refereneced as a theory to explain observations made upon the expansion of the universe - will it ever be physically found, or could it indeed be a force that acts outside of our physical universe in another dimension??? who knows??? regarding your comments on blake,,,multidimensionalism is simply that maybe more than 4 dimensions exist that we don''t know about...these may be physical even - and maybe the cern experiment will shed some more light on that, or it could be that these other ''dimensions'' are intangible,,,my point is, and which my theory tries to show, that if humanbeings can emotionally relate to the duality of the universe, and that also we can therefore comprehend of a unified state that lies outside the physical universe (or preceeded it - the singularity) then maybe we already have a link to another dimension without knowing it (proving it)...for me, love is positive, hate is negative and peace represents their unification - and is representative of the singularity that lies beyond this universe...if you can see it great, but if not, all good tidings to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much of the content on this thread reminds me of of the musings of one my all-time favourite humorist writers, Robert Benchley, when he would share his views on the works of William Shakespeare.

Benchley said the only trouble with acting Shakespeare is the actors, as it brings out the worst in them. Dear Robert said that reading Skakespeare at home is fair enough if one is really persuaded to do so, but to watch actors attempt to put a new twist on something from The Bard is more than the average person should be subjected to, even though the average Shakespeare play attendee will claim it was wonderful while, at the same time, almost to a man, would have twitched through two thirds of the performance, wondering when it would be over so they could give it a darn good clapping of the hands and be done with the thing. Benchley said that much of Shakespeare has actors constantly leaving a stage with much laughter ( their own ) such as in, "At the park gate, and therefore haste away. For we must measure twenty miles today. A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha", and if the actor doesn''t do something such as a handspring, laugh, cry or a rub of the nose then they would be departing the stage saying, "Well, I must be going", and then where are we?

I should say Robert Benchley was also listed as an actor, although he would not thank me for making mention of that.

So it is, I fear, as some on this thread attempt to parrot and interpret the words of others as if they were their own, all in their pursuit of demonstrating intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
YC, was your reply aimed at me? I apolgise if it came across as wishing to demonstrate any intellectual superiority, I was really just thinking out loud on a subject that interests me greatly. I''m always grateful if other people add their own perspective as it helps to clarify my own thinking.As somebody on here pointed out, ''intelligence'' is impossible to define in any absolute manner, but I would personally say that people like yourself, Camul, Nutty, Beausant, Blahx3 (to name but a few - apologies to the rest, but you''ll know who you are) are capable of putting forward reasoned & articulate posts.As for myself, I''ve always considered that I''m not very bright, but I think a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Robert Benchley was also listed as an actor - Ynakee Canary

Isn''t he best known for writing "Jaws"? [:D] (That was intended as comic relief from the serious turn this thread has taken.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ron obvious"]
YC, was your reply aimed at me? I apolgise if it came across as wishing to demonstrate any intellectual superiority, I was really just thinking out loud on a subject that interests me greatly. I''m always grateful if other people add their own perspective as it helps to clarify my own thinking.
As somebody on here pointed out, ''intelligence'' is impossible to define in any absolute manner, but I would personally say that people like yourself, Camul, Nutty, Beausant, Blahx3 (to name but a few - apologies to the rest, but you''ll know who you are) are capable of putting forward reasoned & articulate posts.
As for myself, I''ve always considered that I''m not very bright, but I think a lot.
[/quote]

No, Ron, you would be one of the last I would aim such comment at. I find your posts very interesting. Quite frankly, it was probably a little unfair of me to post such comments as I really was not aiming at anyone in particular. It just seems to me that when long threads in the past have taken on a life of their own they invariably end up with a tremendous outpouring of views that are written as if the writer had developed the thought themselves. Personally, I like it a lot better on such threads when a poster gives their viewpoint and intersperses their comments with reference to their sources in support of their opinion.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Houston Canary"]

 Robert Benchley was also listed as an actor - Ynakee Canary

Isn''t he best known for writing "Jaws"? [:D] (That was intended as comic relief from the serious turn this thread has taken.)

[/quote]

I''m sure you are aware who wrote Jaws HC but, for those that don''t know, it was Peter Benchley who was the grandson of Robert Benchley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Marty"][quote user="astrodyne"][quote user="Marty"][quote user="Blainsey"]

 

Probably me.

3 A-Levels, two of which are in foreign languages

BA Hons in Political Science

PGCE in History

MA in Education

Case closed. lol.

 

[/quote]



I can top that, PhD, do I win? I know nowt about footy mind.

 

[/quote]

Is that PhD in blowing your own trumpet? What a sad thread this is.
[/quote]

 

I actually find it quite interesting, each to his/her own. There''s more to life than just football you know, I think a debate about the existence of time could be fun and probably a lot more contructive that endless debate about how crap our manager is.

[/quote]

 

Didnt want to list it....but I too have a PHD

Pretty Huge D***

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]YC, was your reply aimed at me? I apolgise if it came across as wishing to demonstrate any intellectual superiority, I was really just thinking out loud on a subject that interests me greatly. I''m always grateful if other people add their own perspective as it helps to clarify my own thinking.As somebody on here pointed out, ''intelligence'' is impossible to define in any absolute manner, but I would personally say that people like yourself, Camul, Nutty, Beausant, Blahx3 (to name but a few - apologies to the rest, but you''ll know who you are) are capable of putting forward reasoned & articulate posts.As for myself, I''ve always considered that I''m not very bright, but I think a lot.[/quote]no ron - i assume thats a pop at me -but if i''m wrong, then apologies in advance YC...obviously, i don''t claim credit for the big crunch theory - but i can see that it a possibility, given it would be an equal and opposite event to the big bang...as for my efforts to translate the scientific discoveries surrounding the universe emotionally, then i am quite happy to claim this as an original idea of mine...in fact, as well as enjoying copyright on this message board, i also registered my theory with the copyright protection service in 2003 as well publishing a booklet on the subject in 2004...not all actors it seems are pretenders!!![;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="Houston Canary"]

all the empirical evidence supports the expansion of the Universe from a singularty umpty-ump (13.5 billion?) years ago, before which no thing existed. Therefore no time. - ron obvious

Maybe I''m mistaken, but wasn''t that "umpty-ump" shrinking down from something much bigger before it then expolded into the big bang?  If that IS the case, then perhaps there WAS time before, in the previous version of the universe.

Wow, what a thought!  I should enter it into my Captain''s Log before that weasel Spock take credit for it.

[/quote]

Is that the Einstein-DeSitter cosmology? Haven''t heard about the ''bouncing'' Universe fo about 40 years - although it may have made it back into contention (as I suppose it would!), I''ve lost track.
I suppose though, that if we cannot have knowledge of events before the Singularity, then the existence of any previous Universe can have no effect on events in this Universe - hence no previous time in any meaningful sense of the word.
[/quote]

Not sure Ron that if we cannot know about something we can say it doesn''t exist. It just means we don''t at the moment have the tools to know. If we had the tools then we could be sure.

You cannot know what I had for lunch today, but that doesn''t mean I didn''t have lunch. Actually, I had a nice tuna sandwich.

YH

[/quote]

Absolutely. There may well be a googolplex of things of which we have no knowledge. All it means is that we can''t talk about things in any meaningful way unless we can fit them into a predictive model.
Limiting yourself in this way is, of course, extremely boring. Mankind is perpetually inventing  imagined livesi lived in imagined Worlds. It''s what we do.
It occurs to me that this activity is actually invaluable to our survival, because sometimes our imagination can give us greater insight into this, the phenomenal world.

 "Energy is the only life and is from the body
and reason is the bound and outward circumference of energy."

 "Energy is eternal delight!"                     

Wm. Blake
 
[/quote]

beautiful...

and yeah, string theory and the like shows how science (or certain aspects of it) is looking beyond the rational for meaning in the imagination (irrationality) of man...

but i would suggest that since we can relate emotionally beyond the duality, and conceive of possibilities that may exist beyond our physical universe - probably there is as much truth in this as we find in the confines of our physical world...

so maybe its just a matter of abilities and interpretation,,,its about what seems real - and seemingly for blake and others like him, they appear to have a greater ability to knowingly access the multi-dimensional than what seems normal...having said this, i doubt that their connection is greater, but its just their ability to realise they have a connection and then understand it in a meaningful way (to them at least)...



[/quote]

 

LGT, I think you may have discovered why Fotheringham cannot hit a forward pass...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...