| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
   |
Posted - 2008.05.09 14:16:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 09/05/2008 14:16:51
 Originally by: goodby4u
Dont doubt what the human race can do given the amount of time given... I mean we went from rural iron making and less then adaquite understanding of whats around us to a huge understanding and computers in 100 years... Think of what we could do in a trillion(10 trillion I think is the estimated lifespan of the last dwarf stars).
And once again I fall back on my previous arguement, theories can and usually are found to be wrong... I mean in the next 100 years im sure we would disprove 99% of the theories in existance right now.
And once humans gain an understanding of what everything is made of at the most fundamental level, playing god would be easy...But scary aswell.
Also, wrap your mind around this, humans can possibly have unlimited time to complete their work due to the possibility of time travel.
Lastly, your forgetting about other universes parallel to our own, it is commonly accepted that there are trillions of universes besides ours...If we could store the energy from each one of those universes we could easily restore the amount of energy in our own an unlimited amount of times.
To quote someone else:
"The second law of thermodynamics is one of those rock-solid physical laws, the big gun that a scientist may use to quell the pseudo-scientific flights of fancy held by the reality challenged."
Note that it is a Law and not a Theory. If you can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics you could do things like make a perpetual motion machine. This is not one of those, "We're pretty sure" things. It is a rock solid foundation of physics. If it turns out to be wrong then you would literally toss most of physics into the bin till that point.
It is true that we keep learning more and occasionally toss long held beliefs when new evidence comes to light but you are mistaken to suppose it is really all wrong now and something better lies down the road that is completely different. In ancient times they did not have the scientific method or use rigorous standards for proof and instead relied on intuition which often misguided them. The last 100 or so years the scientific method became paramount, rigorous proof required and repeatable testing to back it up. As such you do not see wholesale dumping of theories anymore like you did when we figured the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.
As such scientists more refine the theories so they get more accurate but not put them in the shredder completely. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one such thing. It is a feature of the universe. You cannot sidestep it. As such, in the end, the Universe will turn into a dark place where literally nothing happens. No people. No stars. Nothing except a homogenized soup of particles hanging out.
And it is not commonly accepted that there are trillions of universes besides ours. Some speculate about it but nothing remotely like being able to prove it. Just fun to speculate about over a pint at the pub. The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fun but not regarded as likely by most scientists (although they cannot prove it is wrong either so it remains as a possibility).
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Terail Zoqial
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 14:30:00 -
[62]
Eat, reproduce, survive.
Anything beyond that is a bonus
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 14:37:00 -
[63]
To quote someone else:
"The second law of thermodynamics is one of those rock-solid physical laws, the big gun that a scientist may use to quell the pseudo-scientific flights of fancy held by the reality challenged."
Note that it is a Law and not a Theory. If you can violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics you could do things like make a perpetual motion machine. This is not one of those, "We're pretty sure" things. It is a rock solid foundation of physics. If it turns out to be wrong then you would literally toss most of physics into the bin till that point.
It is true that we keep learning more and occasionally toss long held beliefs when new evidence comes to light but you are mistaken to suppose it is really all wrong now and something better lies down the road that is completely different. In ancient times they did not have the scientific method or use rigorous standards for proof and instead relied on intuition which often misguided them. The last 100 or so years the scientific method became paramount, rigorous proof required and repeatable testing to back it up. As such you do not see wholesale dumping of theories anymore like you did when we figured the earth orbited the sun and not the other way around.
As such scientists more refine the theories so they get more accurate but not put them in the shredder completely. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is one such thing. It is a feature of the universe. You cannot sidestep it. As such, in the end, the Universe will turn into a dark place where literally nothing happens. No people. No stars. Nothing except a homogenized soup of particles hanging out.
And it is not commonly accepted that there are trillions of universes besides ours. Some speculate about it but nothing remotely like being able to prove it. Just fun to speculate about over a pint at the pub. The Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is fun but not regarded as likely by most scientists (although they cannot prove it is wrong either so it remains as a possibility).
Im sure the sciencists/people sure did think their science was rock solid in the last 100 years and were more thne likely proved wrong.
What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong.
Dont say something cannot happen, especially in a near infinite universe with creatures such as ourselves at the helm.
|
Lord Zoran
House of Tempers
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:09:00 -
[64]
does there really need to be a meaning for life to exist?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: goodby4u
What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong.
If you are that confused over your physics I give up (suspect I am being baited now).
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:14:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Lord Zoran
does there really need to be a meaning for life to exist?
Nope.
I am guessing they are asking if you need a meaning for life to be worthwhile. Frankly I am hard pressed to come up with any "reason" of enough cosmic significance that would satisfy.
All I've got is that life itself has intrinsic value and no need to cast about for explanations outside of that.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:20:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong.
If you are that confused over your physics I give up (suspect I am being baited now).
Im not confused, thats what scientists believed in the 1950s...And this isnt me saying this, its the fricken history channel.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:28:00 -
[68]
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong.
If you are that confused over your physics I give up (suspect I am being baited now).
Im not confused, thats what scientists believed in the 1950s...And this isnt me saying this, its the fricken history channel.
I am quite sure that is NOT what the History Channel said.
If you cannot distinguish between the speed of light and the speed of sound discussions of thermodynamics and its implications are just right out.
And they knew things went faster than the speed of sound before man ever went that fast. All they had to do was track a meteor zipping in of which there are plenty. They were just unsure if they could build a plane strong enough to pass the sound barrier. If they actually thought it was impossible I doubt they would have sent men to try and die doing it. They knew it was possible...just a matter of engineering.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Candice Bormardin
Caldari
Jouvulen Enterprises Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:28:00 -
[69]
The meaning of life: Cheese! or 42
That's what I've learned from pop culture.
As to religion. People tend to be real religious when they are faced with things they have no control over. Ancient peoples had hardly any control over their lives so they ate slept and breathed their religions. Today we have a lot more control so we tend to be less religious - at least those of us in societies with internet connections ... Material can act as a buffer between our selves and the cold, cruel universe.
Often times, as people are dying horrible deaths they call out for their mothers or their God. Here I think is an answer to why they do it. They are utterly desperate, know they are dying, are in great pain and - are seeking comfort. They may well not get any but that's what they're pleading for. Someone to come along and make it all better - even if that isn't going to happen.
When we are children - we look to our parents to take care of us - but as we become adults we're sorta on our own.
My guess is that religion provides a form of comfort to people.
That comfort doesn't depend on whether or not it's true.
If it makes someone feel better to believe that they'll see their loved ones again in an after life - then the fact that it makes them feel better is reason enough. Losing a loved one is devastating. If someone can find comfort in their religion at such times ... far be it from me to begrudge them that small favor.
As to arguing about what's real and what isn't ... we're still a fairly ignorant species. Thus trying to make determinations about things we know very little about is somewhat ineffective. But of course, if you enjoy doing it for it's own sake then that is reason enough.
As far as individuals are concerned though, we each tend to assign meaning to things whether they have any objective meaning or not. If those assigned meanings give the individual a sense of purpose and give them a meaning to their lives - then that too is reason enough to do it.
Of course, sitting back and philosophizing is a luxury many don't have. They're to busy just trying to cope.
*shrug*
__
Catchwords ... are necessary for all those who are unable to think for themselves ... whenever a catchword is uttered, ... question: Is this true?
Hans von Seeckt, Reichsheer CIC 1920-26 |
omglollolol
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:29:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Terail Zoqial
Eat, reproduce, survive.
Anything beyond that is a bonus
you're more than welcome to join my harem 
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:34:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong.
If you are that confused over your physics I give up (suspect I am being baited now).
Im not confused, thats what scientists believed in the 1950s...And this isnt me saying this, its the fricken history channel.
I am quite sure that is NOT what the History Channel said.
If you cannot distinguish between the speed of light and the speed of sound discussions of thermodynamics and its implications are just right out.
And they knew things went faster than the speed of sound before man ever went that fast. All they had to do was track a meteor zipping in of which there are plenty. They were just unsure if they could build a plane strong enough to pass the sound barrier. If they actually thought it was impossible I doubt they would have sent men to try and die doing it. They knew it was possible...just a matter of engineering.
I know the difference, I read einsteins' reasoning on how stuff works.... But whilst it doesnt make sense to us now, thats what a good number of scientists believed in the 50s and who says in another 50 years we wont look just as foolish?
Ofcourse I believe thermodynamics is truth, but thats just because it hasnt been disproved yet... I mean we havent even been to another planet yet and we are going to assume that a law is infallible?
All science is subject to change.
|
Atnal
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:57:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Atnal on 09/05/2008 16:05:29
A box of chocolates?
Even if life didn't have meaning then it's on wild roller coaster! The point is life has different meanings to different people so you can't say definitively this is what it is. I believe there's somewhat of a meaning being here but that's just me.
If what you do in life brings you happiness then by all means.
|
TimMc
Gallente
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:03:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Lord Zoran
does there really need to be a meaning for life to exist?
Yeah I just think God got bored one day, wanted to create the ultimate God sim where everyone was there to worship him.
<I am religious believe it or not>
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:09:00 -
[74]
Originally by: goodby4u
I know the difference, I read einsteins' reasoning on how stuff works.... But whilst it doesnt make sense to us now, thats what a good number of scientists believed in the 50s and who says in another 50 years we wont look just as foolish?
No, you do not know the difference.
The Speed of Sound is far, far different than the issues surrounding the Speed of Light.
Scientists knew things could go faster than the speed of sound. What they were unsure of was whether they could overcome the engineering hurdles. They could build something strong enough to withstand the forces but, back then, it would be too heavy to fly. Additionally was apparent loss of control from air going over the flight surfaces as the speed of sound was approached. Planes would go out of control. But hell, they shot bullets that were faster than the speed of sound. Again, it was an engineering problem.
The speed of light is different and very well tested many, many times. There are a variety of problems in trying to surpass the speed of light that simply cannot be overcome. Among them is if something with mass reaches light speed it would have infinite mass. To move an infinite mass you need an infinite amount of energy (so all the energy in the universe and then some). Also, time stops once you reach the speed of light. So, even if you somehow magically managed to do this you would be frozen in time till the universe itself ceased to exist. Also, distance shortens in the direction of travel. At the speed of light the entire universe would be infinitely thin.
These are not things they merely suspect. These aspects have been tested over and over again with amazing precision. Hell, the time dilation dealie is used to make GPS work. Without accounting for the time distortions by the satellites movement through space your GPS would fail you. There is no getting around it.
Now, it may be we can find a way to cheat via warping or folding space or travel through hyperspace/other dimensions or use wormholes. In these cases you will arrive where you are going faster than light going the long way around but you have not been accelerated to light speed. You are just taking a short cut through the universe.
Quote:
Ofcourse I believe thermodynamics is truth, but thats just because it hasnt been disproved yet... I mean we havent even been to another planet yet and we are going to assume that a law is infallible?
We have sent many probes to other planets and besides that does not matter. The rules of the universe will work the same no matter where you are so testing here works just fine. The Laws of Thermodynamics will be the same wherever you go and it is an inescapable feature of this universe.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:17:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
We have sent many probes to other planets and besides that does not matter. The rules of the universe will work the same no matter where you are so testing here works just fine. The Laws of Thermodynamics will be the same wherever you go and it is an inescapable feature of this universe.
I see, so you flew around the universe before? No?
Listen, we could probe and use as many computer programs with our laws inputted as we want, that doesnt necessarily mean its the same throughout the universe, this just means that these laws work within OUR corner of knowledge.
Like I said, science is subject to change, its quite possible that we would either find, or invent something in the future that could defy this law.
Lastly, you are making the mistake of saying something is impossible, but as ive seen, things thought impossible in the past is just an everyday experience with us now.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:39:00 -
[76]
Originally by: goodby4u
I see, so you flew around the universe before? No?
Listen, we could probe and use as many computer programs with our laws inputted as we want, that doesnt necessarily mean its the same throughout the universe, this just means that these laws work within OUR corner of knowledge.
There are no preferred or "special" places in the universe. All places are equivalent to any other place (with the possible exception of at the singularity in a Black Hole...no one quite knows how to figure what happens there but of course those singularities are blocked from the rest of the universe so even if you go in to find it is different you can never tell anyone about it...God abhors a naked singularity). Why would you think there are unique places in the universe where the laws of physics differ? Indeed such a thing would actually denote a different universe which by definition would be separate from our own (and if there are other universes it is possible the laws governing it are different than ours and in fact one of the goals of physics is to determine if the laws governing our universe had to happen that way or are just a colossal lucky roll of cosmic dice).
Quote:
Like I said, science is subject to change, its quite possible that we would either find, or invent something in the future that could defy this law.
No, you won't. Saying we will find an exception to breaking the speed of light (note this does not include traveling through a worm hole or such) is like saying we will eventually learn that 2 + 2 = 7. Just...not....going...to...happen. Very well undertsood. Very well tested to absurd precision. Tested decades over and over and over. Answers are always spot on and perfectly in line with predictions.
Quote:
Lastly, you are making the mistake of saying something is impossible, but as ive seen, things thought impossible in the past is just an everyday experience with us now.
Breaking the speed of light is impossible. If you do manage it you will destroy the universe (your infinite mass would cause the universe to collapse). It is not a matter of we just not have thought of a way to build a spaceship and engine to do it. There is nothing that can.
Our hope for traveling the universe will lie in perhaps finding shortcuts via hyperspace or warp drives and so on. While no one today can figure how such things could even work I'll allow that this may be a case of who knows what tomorrow will bring and may someday be feasible.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:42:00 -
[77]
Edited by: goodby4u on 09/05/2008 16:43:04
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
I see, so you flew around the universe before? No?
Listen, we could probe and use as many computer programs with our laws inputted as we want, that doesnt necessarily mean its the same throughout the universe, this just means that these laws work within OUR corner of knowledge.
There are no preferred or "special" places in the universe. All places are equivalent to any other place (with the possible exception of at the singularity in a Black Hole...no one quite knows how to figure what happens there but of course those singularities are blocked from the rest of the universe so even if you go in to find it is different you can never tell anyone about it...God abhors a naked singularity). Why would you think there are unique places in the universe where the laws of physics differ? Indeed such a thing would actually denote a different universe which by definition would be separate from our own (and if there are other universes it is possible the laws governing it are different than ours and in fact one of the goals of physics is to determine if the laws governing our universe had to happen that way or are just a colossal lucky roll of cosmic dice).
Quote:
Like I said, science is subject to change, its quite possible that we would either find, or invent something in the future that could defy this law.
No, you won't. Saying we will find an exception to breaking the speed of light (note this does not include traveling through a worm hole or such) is like saying we will eventually learn that 2 + 2 = 7. Just...not....going...to...happen. Very well undertsood. Very well tested to absurd precision. Tested decades over and over and over. Answers are always spot on and perfectly in line with predictions.
Quote:
Lastly, you are making the mistake of saying something is impossible, but as ive seen, things thought impossible in the past is just an everyday experience with us now.
Breaking the speed of light is impossible. If you do manage it you will destroy the universe (your infinite mass would cause the universe to collapse). It is not a matter of we just not have thought of a way to build a spaceship and engine to do it. There is nothing that can.
Our hope for traveling the universe will lie in perhaps finding shortcuts via hyperspace or warp drives and so on. While no one today can figure how such things could even work I'll allow that this may be a case of who knows what tomorrow will bring and may someday be feasible.
Wait huh? I know we cant go past the speed of light... I never said any different.
Also in order for something to be scientific law it must be proven among other things, you cannot prove that other places in our universe are the same.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:50:00 -
[78]
Originally by: goodby4u
Wait huh? I know we cant go past the speed of light... I never said any different.
Also in order for something to be scientific law it must be proven among other things, you cannot prove that other places in our universe are the same.
You posted in post #63: "What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong."
Your mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
I do not need to prove that other places are the same since it is more than reasonable to suppose that they are the same as regards physical laws. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that physical laws may change as we go from place to place it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence of why that would be so. Also, before you start on your proof read up on the Cosmological Principle which, simply stated, says: "On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or, put another way, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale."
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:55:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
Wait huh? I know we cant go past the speed of light... I never said any different.
Also in order for something to be scientific law it must be proven among other things, you cannot prove that other places in our universe are the same.
You posted in post #63: "What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong."
Your mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
I do not need to prove that other places are the same since it is more than reasonable to suppose that they are the same as regards physical laws. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that physical laws may change as we go from place to place it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence of why that would be so. Also, before you start on your proof read up on the Cosmological Principle which, simply stated, says: "On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or, put another way, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale."
So your logic is based on logic of others that made an educated guess?
Also I said they THOUGHT it was impossible, it wasnt... But I never said it was possible to go past the speed of light... Well let me rephrase that it is in theory possible but would take darn near the universes' total energy and would detroy it all in the process.
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:26:00 -
[80]
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 09/05/2008 18:34:53
it is unknowable with the intellect because it is not dual nor non-dual
have fun with ongoing discussion about the nothing leading to ?
yes nothing ! 
i have had enough of stuffing things into a blackhole of nothingness-evrythingness............
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:41:00 -
[81]
Originally by: LUH 3471
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 09/05/2008 18:39:48
it is unknowable with the intellect because it wether is not dual nor non-dual
have fun with an ongoing discussion about the nothing leading to ?
yes nothing !
beautifull !
but you know how you get there faster ?
just be still.
But its nowhere near as fun.
|
kor anon
Amarr
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 19:01:00 -
[82]
Edited by: kor anon on 09/05/2008 19:02:51
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
Wait huh? I know we cant go past the speed of light... I never said any different.
Also in order for something to be scientific law it must be proven among other things, you cannot prove that other places in our universe are the same.
You posted in post #63: "What about the 1950s where the majority of scientists believed it wasnt possible to go past the speed of sound because if you do your mass becomes infinite... Im sure they had proof to back it up but they were wrong."
Your mass becomes infinite at the speed of light.
I do not need to prove that other places are the same since it is more than reasonable to suppose that they are the same as regards physical laws. If you want to make the extraordinary claim that physical laws may change as we go from place to place it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence of why that would be so. Also, before you start on your proof read up on the Cosmological Principle which, simply stated, says: "On large spatial scales, the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic. Or, put another way, the universe is the same everywhere on a large scale."
the cosmalogical principle is a law applied to the universe as a model that most fits the actions that we observe. This does not mean it is correct, it just means this is the most useful model until a new one comes along
|
Candice Bormardin
Caldari
Jouvulen Enterprises Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:01:00 -
[83]
Uh ... two things ...
1) Chuck Yeager "broke the sound barrier on October 14, 1947."
2) There is a lot we understand about the universe but there is also a lot we don't understand. There may even be things we don't even know enough about to realize we don't understand them. What we can do is try and explain what we are seeing with what we do know. Thus models as above. Now ... going from understanding our universe to being able to change it's behavior ... isn't something I'd count on human beings ever being able to do.
__
Catchwords ... are necessary for all those who are unable to think for themselves ... whenever a catchword is uttered, ... question: Is this true?
Hans von Seeckt, Reichsheer CIC 1920-26 |
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:03:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Candice Bormardin
Uh ... two things ...
1) Chuck Yeager "broke the sound barrier on October 14, 1947."
2) There is a lot we understand about the universe but there is also a lot we don't understand. There may even be things we don't even know enough about to realize we don't understand them. What we can do is try and explain what we are seeing with what we do know. Thus models as above. Now ... going from understanding our universe to being able to change it's behavior ... isn't something I'd count on human beings ever being able to do.
Whoops your right, I guess I was thinking about the 40s.
|
LUH 3471
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:09:00 -
[85]
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: LUH 3471
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 09/05/2008 18:39:48
it is unknowable with the intellect because it wether is not dual nor non-dual
have fun with an ongoing discussion about the nothing leading to ?
yes nothing !
beautifull !
but you know how you get there faster ?
just be still.
But its nowhere near as fun.
oh then you havent put your feet in the ocean yet
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 21:11:00 -
[86]
Originally by: LUH 3471
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: LUH 3471
Edited by: LUH 3471 on 09/05/2008 18:39:48
it is unknowable with the intellect because it wether is not dual nor non-dual
have fun with an ongoing discussion about the nothing leading to ?
yes nothing !
beautifull !
but you know how you get there faster ?
just be still.
But its nowhere near as fun.
oh then you havent put your feet in the ocean yet
I live about 300 feet away from the ocean...
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 21:26:00 -
[87]
Originally by: goodby4u
So your logic is based on logic of others that made an educated guess?
Better than your guess which is not even an educated one and besides there is actually observational evidence supporting the notion of the Cosmological Principle. There is zero evidence for your view.
Quote:
Also I said they THOUGHT it was impossible, it wasnt... But I never said it was possible to go past the speed of light... Well let me rephrase that it is in theory possible but would take darn near the universes' total energy and would detroy it all in the process.
They NEVER thought it was "impossible" to break the sound barrier. They could do it firing bullets. They were unsure if they could design a plane that could stay in control while breaching the sound barrier. That is an engineering problem. Think about it...if they thought it was impossible why would so many have tried and tried again to do it (more than a few losing their lives in the attempt)?
And no, accelerating a mass to the speed of light isn't even in theory possible with ludicrous amounts of energy because you need infinite energy to do it so ludicrous amounts barely begins to get you there.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 21:53:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: goodby4u
So your logic is based on logic of others that made an educated guess?
Better than your guess which is not even an educated one and besides there is actually observational evidence supporting the notion of the Cosmological Principle. There is zero evidence for your view.
Quote:
Also I said they THOUGHT it was impossible, it wasnt... But I never said it was possible to go past the speed of light... Well let me rephrase that it is in theory possible but would take darn near the universes' total energy and would detroy it all in the process.
They NEVER thought it was "impossible" to break the sound barrier. They could do it firing bullets. They were unsure if they could design a plane that could stay in control while breaching the sound barrier. That is an engineering problem. Think about it...if they thought it was impossible why would so many have tried and tried again to do it (more than a few losing their lives in the attempt)?
And no, accelerating a mass to the speed of light isn't even in theory possible with ludicrous amounts of energy because you need infinite energy to do it so ludicrous amounts barely begins to get you there.
I have tons of proof to prove my theory that we dont know if the universe is homogenious.
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Caldari
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.05.09 22:00:00 -
[89]
I thought about the meaning of life extensively over the years. It's a nonsense question to even ask, at first, because how exactly do you quantify "meaning". I looked at the aspirations of the modern day man.
It was this that opened my eyes.
All the things we aspire toward, all the things society calls the ideal, make no goddamn sense. Our lives begin at their apex, and from there, it's a steady descent downward. At no time is life better, then when we are ignorant of what it takes to be alive. Then, we grow up, and begin shackling ourselves to these fabulous ideals of a "good life" - graduate, get a job, buy a car, find a pretty girl, marry her, buy a house, crap out some kids, then slowly waste away. Upon this precise moment of realization, I discovered the true meaning of life, the one hidden behind all the social mores and recommendations.
The meaning of life is to live life however you god-damned please, and in whichever fashion brings you the most reward. For some, that's graduating, getting jobs, buying cars, finding pretty girls, marrying them, buying a house, crapping out some kids, and wasting away. It will not be for me.
I have already abandoned my previous career field, dental technology - a well paying and secure job, in favour of writing books. Why? Because it feels good. I got rid of my car, because I never really liked driving. I won't marry, because I change girlfriends every couple weeks or months, and haven't found anyone I could stand tolerating for longer, much less marry for the rest of my life. I will not have children, because I hate children, and I want to live my own life - not be turned into a life support mechanism for 18 years while my ungrateful bastard of a child ****es away what little I earn. To sum it up, I will live for myself, seeking only my own pleasure, my own reward, and no-one else's - and that is the meaning of life: the realization that nobody else matters but you.
|
Mother Clanger
M. Corp
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.05.10 00:20:00 -
[90]
The meaning of life is to give life meaning.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |