Time, death and the universe

[Thorne]

Actually seeing these things is a form of measurement.

Not exactly. It's the first step, certainly, but contrary to popular belief, seeing is not always believing. There are some pretty good optical illusions on You Tube that demonstrate that very well.

If what's being seen is from some weird kind of quantum entanglement between so called potentially parallel universes (which as I understand the main related theory means it's not so much "parallel" as dimensions warped up inside the space in between our own on the Plank scale) ...then it makes sense that the phenomena isn't fully recordable via normal means.

While this is, of course, a possibility, there would have to be a way for us to record such interactions, since they are physically impinging upon our universe. If what we think we are seeing is actually there, then it can be recorded. It might be that this entanglement is interacting directly with our brains, and we don't have the means to record such interactions, but then how do you separate them from hallucinations?

Furthermore: If it's been happening through out human history...then one can conclude that:

A) It is just what people seem to think it is IE the supernatural etc (which also means our understanding of physics is still a lil off since it needs to include the study of such things in more than just a fringe way..

The supernatural is, by definition, above nature, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. In which case, they do not impinge upon our universe and can be considered on a par with hallucinations, as mentioned above.

B) It's a naturally occurring phenomena of the physical world and we humans are categorically misinterpreting what we are seeing or hearing etc and we just haven't figured out a way to substantially "measure" events....(or the act of attempted measurement is changing the results just like it does in the famous split screen experiments).

Not an impossible situation, certainly, but the fact that people tend to see different things (unless "prompted" by the visions of another person) tends to put this kind of viewing back into the realm of hallucination. The brain sees what's familiar. Cultural differences in such viewings seem to confirm this.

C) It's a relatively uncommon yet natural occurring element of human experience to "see ghosts" or at least "think one has" on occasion.

This is the most likely explanation, as far as I've been able to determine. We have a natural tendency to see things that aren't really there. It's part of our survival mechanism. The best explanation for this I've heard is the story of two primitive humans on the plains. They see movement in the grass and one of them sees it as a lion and runs away. The other sees it as wind in the grass and stays. If it's only the wind, both are OK. If it's really a lion, the one who stayed is dead. We are descended from those who ran away.

[Thorne]

Actually seeing is not always reliable, or feeling. Hallucinations, for example. Reading a book on the brain, some of those by Oliver Sacks are really good, can make you doubt your ability to experience reality as something really real. Everything passes through our brain filter, and sometimes gets a little distorted, even for people who entirely sane and with normal brains.

It gets even worse than that. Memories, after a period of time, can become "contaminated" by other memories, or by our own desires, or by outside influences. What you remember may not even have happened the way you remember it.

[ksst]

You don't have to tell me that. I have the world's worst memory. I actually call my Master "my memory". He remember poems he memorized in junior high. He remembers which movies I've seen and whether I liked them. I barely remember last week unless something significant happened. I have never successfully memorized any poem, and I've tried. I can watch movies with surprise endings repeatedly and enjoy the surprise all over again. That is pathetic.

[ksst]

I wanted to add that probably the main reason I write, journal, diary, blog, post thoughts and take photos constantly is that without those types of rehearsals everything would be gone for me. I have written a diary and kept a photo album since I was 9. I don't remember anything that happened before that age except for stories people in my family tell. It made my mom kind of sad. She said "We worked so hard to give you a happy and memorable childhood". I'm sure it's there somewhere though, in my happy personality

[MMI]

MMI: Best thread in a long time!

I have to agree with you there.

Again!?

MMI: It might help explain why things never grow younger, or why coffee goes cold, but does not heat up.
The ice block falling back up into the glacier ... surely gravity trumps time here?

But coffee does heat up! You just have to add energy to it. Perhaps time can be reversed by the proper application of energy?

Same problem [for the ice block] as the coffee. If you apply enough energy, at the right time, you can push that ice block back onto the glacier.

I'm not sure I can accept that boiling a kettle, or even counteracting gravity, amounts to reversing time (especially if you have to wait for the "right time") ... but I did allude to reversing physics in my earlier post: same thing but more?

MMI: The arrow of time tends towards entropy (chaos, waste). Does it? Throughout all of elapsed time so far, it seems to me the universe has evolved, not disintegrated. Maybe that will change, but will it affect the direction of time?

The law of entropy only applies in a closed system. The universe as a whole is a closed system, since it contains everything in existence. Parts of the universe temporarily reverse entropy, which is why we have life on Earth, for example, but overall, entropy rules.

I'm way out of my depth here, but it seems to me that the whole of the known universe is at pretty much the same level of chaos. So why not the rest of it?

MMI: Whatever caused the universe to come into being is/was not bound by the laws of physics

We don't know that, though. There could be (and probably are) physical properties which we have yet to unravel. There are many cosmologists who are speculating about how the universe could have formed, using what we know about the current universe. One, or more, of these speculations could prove to be right.

So the hypothesis is that the laws of physics precede physicality itself?

...

MMI: Will I live again? ... I suspect the chances are small.

Actually, the chances are quite large ... One thing life is good at is recycling.

Good point

No, [the sun won't go supernova]. It will eventually expand into a red giant, probably encompassing the Earth itself, before collapsing down into a white dwarf.

Thanks for the info. It suggests that once Earth has been absorbed, the chances of Earth-life being recycled any further are minimal.

[denuseri]

Not exactly. It's the first step, certainly, but contrary to popular belief, seeing is not always believing. There are some pretty good optical illusions on You Tube that demonstrate that very well.

I should have been more specific please forgive me: In quantum physics the act of something so seemingly passive as "seeing" something is akin to bumping it's photons which are all entangled down on the plank scale with the thing being seen and hence automatically count as a "measurement" that influences what is precieved. Much like as espoused from the numerous experimental results from things like the split screen test etc. Said test being a well known and proven means of determining how light photons act as a wave until "measured" and then at that moment become like particles.


While this is, of course, a possibility, there would have to be a way for us to record such interactions, since they are physically impinging upon our universe.

There are plenty of experiments which show that such things do in fact "not" need to be measured to behave in such a manner on the ultra-tiny scale and effect experiences measured on the macro scale. Sometimes the only thing about something that can be recorded is its speed, or its spin, or its charge but not at the same time be able to determine it's position. If the position is known then one cannot know its charge etc.

If what we think we are seeing is actually there, then it can be recorded. It might be that this entanglement is interacting directly with our brains, and we don't have the means to record such interactions, but then how do you separate them from hallucinations?

You don't and they are then possibly tantamount to "god" or "something" magic what have you...making you see what it wants as much as they could be holographic (which is another theory on the ultra tiny scale where strings vibrate and things are in more than one place at the same time, fuzzy like a dancing pixel board with particles dancing around and teleporting through space and time in a little storm and wave like as opposed to being like particles until an aspect of them is detected and then poof! they turn into a particle in a specific location or of a specific charge etc. Almost as if the hand of god is always at work making your precieved reality seemingly out of nothing.


The supernatural is, by definition, above nature, and therefore not subject to the laws of physics as we know them. In which case, they do not impinge upon our universe and can be considered on a par with hallucinations, as mentioned above.

Only by such a strict definition can one avoid the ultimate philosophical question of what existence is and how does the universe work. In science one must be prepared to objectively follow where the information one discovers takes them without reservations. Which doesn't mean that which we for so long thought was "super" natural turns out to be just as much a part of ourselves as it is a part of all things ...ironically both seen and unseen. In which sense being super means more of something or better of something or simply that which was once thought of as being beyond our human understanding.


Not an impossible situation, certainly, but the fact that people tend to see different things (unless "prompted" by the visions of another person) tends to put this kind of viewing back into the realm of hallucination. The brain sees what's familiar. Cultural differences in such viewings seem to confirm this.

Hallucinations which could be induced by as of yet not understood stimuli as in the case of mass hallucinations? Where a group obviously sees something in common.


This is the most likely explanation, as far as I've been able to determine. We have a natural tendency to see things that aren't really there. It's part of our survival mechanism. The best explanation for this I've heard is the story of two primitive humans on the plains. They see movement in the grass and one of them sees it as a lion and runs away. The other sees it as wind in the grass and stays. If it's only the wind, both are OK. If it's really a lion, the one who stayed is dead. We are descended from those who ran away.

I think however it is a limited approach to such things to have and maintain preconceptions with some phenomena being prematurely discarded because they do not seem at first to be the most probable especially considering the quantum possibilities.

[denuseri]

Again!?

Hey it even happens with me some times lol!






I'm way out of my depth here, but it seems to me that the whole of the known universe is at pretty much the same level of chaos. So why not the rest of it?

Yes! Why not?





So the hypothesis is that the laws of physics precede physicality itself?

Well on the ultra small scale they do sort of. Like the laws break down into smaller constituents and then even smaller break downs continue further. Like Time should have its own probability particle wave just like gravity or the nuclear forces etc. It's postulated that everything at one point was compressed down to the size of the smallest of things first and then expanded with no evidence being possible at this point of what existed if anything before, why it was compressed or why it suddenly decided to expand or even if it oscillates back and forth.

...









Thanks for the info. It suggests that once Earth has been absorbed, the chances of Earth-life being recycled any further are minimal.

The latest I heard is that it is more likely that as the sun's fuel is exhausted and it expands into its red giant phase it's warping of gravity around it will also change and that the earth and other planets may not fall into the sun but surf the expansions pressure wave into more distant orbits that may or may not involve collusion with the outer planets which being already more distant and massive may not react as quickly.

[Thorne]

Originally Posted by Thorne
I have to agree with you there.

Again!?

See? Miracle CAN happen!

I'm not sure I can accept that boiling a kettle, or even counteracting gravity, amounts to reversing time (especially if you have to wait for the "right time") ... but I did allude to reversing physics in my earlier post: same thing but more?

That wasn't what I meant. Just that it may someday be possible to apply a certain type of energy at a certain level to reverse the entropy of time, just as by adding energy to that kettle can reverse the entropy of the water.

I'm way out of my depth here, but it seems to me that the whole of the known universe is at pretty much the same level of chaos. So why not the rest of it?

The size of the universe is, literally, unimaginable. The amount of contaminants (matter) is incomprehensibly small by comparison. According to this page, "0.0000000000000000000042 percent of the universe contains any matter." Looking from the outside (Outside the universe? Try wrapping your head around that!) the universe is virtually empty!

So the hypothesis is that the laws of physics precede physicality itself?

The "laws" of physics are man made. They are simply statements of observations, which so far have held true under normal conditions. Calculations suggest that under the immense gravity of a black hole, or at the time of the Big Bang, these laws would not necessarily apply. So I would say no, they do not predate physicality, but are an integral part of it.

[Thorne]

In quantum physics the act of something so seemingly passive as "seeing" something is akin to bumping it's photons which are all entangled down on the plank scale with the thing being seen and hence automatically count as a "measurement" that influences what is precieved.

You're talking the uncertainty principle here, right? My knowledge of quantum physics is very sparse. But what you're saying applies to individual photons, certainly, but as a group all of their characteristics can be measured. By taking enough such measurements you can make predictions for virtually all photons.

You don't and they are then possibly tantamount to "god" or "something" magic what have you...making you see what it wants Almost as if the hand of god is always at work making your precieved reality seemingly out of nothing.

But there's the problem. If you allow yourself to accept hallucinations as coming from some non-physical realm, whether god or something else, then you would have to explain just how this non-physical realm interacts with ours. And such interactions, if they are real, should be able to be measured scientifically, which removes them from the supernatural. A far more likely explanation is that they are just hallucinations.

Only by such a strict definition can one avoid the ultimate philosophical question of what existence is and how does the universe work.

The question of "what existence is" is a philosophical question, for sure. I'm not equipped, either educationally or temperamentally, to discuss philosophy. I find it tedious and contradictory, with little or no evidence of having any real value, at least to me. However, "how does the universe work" is strictly a science question, one which mankind has been asking, and finding answers to, from the very beginning.

super means more of something or better of something or simply that which was once thought of as being beyond our human understanding.

Ultimately, I'm not sure we can honestly conclude that there is anything beyond human understanding. If we apply our intelligence, I think we can eventually learn how everything works. And it is quite possible that, someday, we will learn that some of the things we've ignored as being supernatural are, indeed, natural. But that does not mean that we should accept every supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. Doing that will only restrict our ability to find out what's really happening.

Hallucinations which could be induced by as of yet not understood stimuli as in the case of mass hallucinations? Where a group obviously sees something in common.

There have been numerous studies done which show that:
1) People will see patterns in random data, such as faces in clouds.
2) What people claim to see can be influenced by environment, culture and expectations.
3) People can be made to see a specific pattern when influenced by another person.
Most mass hallucinations are caused by some combination of these three, and other influences. Sightings of the Loch Ness Monster are like this. People go there expecting to see it, so anything they see which is different and unexplainable automatically becomes Nessie. But when you go there and try to find her scientifically, there's nothing to see.

I think however it is a limited approach to such things to have and maintain preconceptions with some phenomena being prematurely discarded because they do not seem at first to be the most probable especially considering the quantum possibilities.

I'm not saying we should discard an idea just because it doesn't seem probable. But when you propose such an idea you have to have some way of showing that it is even possible. You can't throw something out there and say, "Now go and prove me wrong." You have to provide evidence for it first, otherwise it's purely speculation, and hardly worth the time of someone else to investigate.

When Alfred Wegener first proposed the idea that the continents drifted, spreading apart and colliding like bumper cars, he was laughed at, his idea ridiculed. After all, what could be more solid than the ground beneath your feet? But he had the evidence, the observations, the tests. Everything that was needed to convince the scientific establishment to look deeper. If he had simply come out with a statement that the continents moved, with no evidence or data, the ridicule would have been justly deserved.

When astronomers look out into the universe and detect distant galaxies, and stars, and planets, even, they have solid science to back up their conclusions. Their data are checked, double checked and triple checked. Their conclusions are torn down and rebuilt, to insure that the science is right. Only then are they able to say with any confidence that they are PROBABLY correct. All scientists know that future observations, future advances in measurements, may turn their theories upside down. But everything we know tells us that, as far as we can determine, THIS is how the universe works!

[Thorne]

The latest I heard is that it is more likely that as the sun's fuel is exhausted and it expands into its red giant phase it's warping of gravity around it will also change and that the earth and other planets may not fall into the sun but surf the expansions pressure wave into more distant orbits that may or may not involve collusion with the outer planets which being already more distant and massive may not react as quickly.

I haven't heard this one before, but I can see the possibility. I'm not sure such pressure waves wouldn't be just as likely to suck the Earth deeper into the Sun, though. Let's face it: the Earth is pretty massive, and moving at a pretty good clip. That's a lot of momentum to overcome. And I'm not aware that they have even shown that such "pressure waves" can be produced by gravity. Not saying they can't be, but I'd like to see the explanations.

Thanks for the info. It suggests that once Earth has been absorbed, the chances of Earth-life being recycled any further are minimal.

It may not be that bad, actually. I suggest you find a copy of Phil Plait's book, "Death From the Skies". He delves into all the different ways that the universe can kill us, including the Sun's expansion. But he also says that we may be able to move the Earth away into a more distant orbit, to buy us a little time. It's good reading, and not overly technical.

[denuseri]

The pressure is provided by the sun (the sun wont expand until its own pressure overcomes it's own gravity)...but they are finding that just like electrons will only find stable orbital shells at certian distances so it is with stars and their planets.

[Thorne]

The pressure is provided by the sun (the sun wont expand until its own pressure overcomes it's own gravity)...but they are finding that just like electrons will only find stable orbital shells at certian distances so it is with stars and their planets.

Then you're talking about the Solar Wind, then? Basically, material ejected from the Sun and streaming outwards into space. I would think this would make it even less likely to move a planet. Most of the particles of the Solar Wind are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and so wouldn't actually provide any drag, or push, to move the planet.

On the other hand, the Sun's gravity isn't going to change significantly, but as it expands it will spread out with the material of the Sun. It might possibly reach a point where the pull of the Sun's gravity will no longer act like a point source. I wouldn't want to even TRY to calculate the results of that!

As for orbits, a single planet can orbit it's star at almost any distance, depending only on the mass of the star and the speed of the planet. When you add additional planets things become more complicated, and there will indeed be optimal orbits formed. But remember, as the Sun expands it will easily engulf Mercury, and Venus. These changes will have an effect on the Earth's orbit as well.

And you still have the problem of the Earth's momentum. The Sun's expansion will be fairly rapid, on an astronomical scale. I don't know if there would be enough time to move the Earth aside before it became engulfed.

[thir]

Were they pills? It could be a reaction to the filler materials. My mother-in-law couldn't take generic meds supposedly because they used lower quality filler materials, and she would have an adverse reaction. Personally, I think it was psychosomatic, but I never tried to prove that.

It was a liquid. The idea that it was psychocsomatic seems the only one, but a bit unreal in the face of how much of a fool I felt, and how little I expected anything to happen at all. I mean, water into water..

Since homeopathic medications are diluted to the point where there is a near zero probability of their being a single molecule of the medication remaining in the pill, there would be nothing of the active ingredient for you to react to.

I know!

[denuseri]

Then you're talking about the Solar Wind, then? Basically, material ejected from the Sun and streaming outwards into space. I would think this would make it even less likely to move a planet. Most of the particles of the Solar Wind are deflected by the Earth's magnetic field, and so wouldn't actually provide any drag, or push, to move the planet.

On the other hand, the Sun's gravity isn't going to change significantly, but as it expands it will spread out with the material of the Sun. It might possibly reach a point where the pull of the Sun's gravity will no longer act like a point source. I wouldn't want to even TRY to calculate the results of that!

As for orbits, a single planet can orbit it's star at almost any distance, depending only on the mass of the star and the speed of the planet. When you add additional planets things become more complicated, and there will indeed be optimal orbits formed. But remember, as the Sun expands it will easily engulf Mercury, and Venus. These changes will have an effect on the Earth's orbit as well.

And you still have the problem of the Earth's momentum. The Sun's expansion will be fairly rapid, on an astronomical scale. I don't know if there would be enough time to move the Earth aside before it became engulfed.

Sighs a lot of the stuff your speaking off is only in effect if you use only the outdated Newtonian physics (which in a lot of cases is perfectly ok on the normal levels of the macro scale) ...a lot of what Im talking about is using Relativity and quantum physics. Where gravity and space-time act much differently than just a bunch of spinning planets with mass and velocity. Space -time has wrinkles and gravity pressure waves (the arms of the galaxey wouldnt exist without them btw). The natural outward pressure of the sun thats driving the solar wind currently doesnt generate all that much force...enough to push bad particles through the atmosphere or burn off any planet's atmosphere that doesnt have a stong enough magnetic field but over all not so powerful. Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

[Thorne]

Sighs a lot of the stuff your speaking off is only in effect if you use only the outdated Newtonian physics (which in a lot of cases is perfectly ok on the normal levels of the macro scale) ...a lot of what Im talking about is using Relativity and quantum physics.

I'm familiar with the differences between Relativistic physics versus Newtonian, and you're right, Newtonian physics works perfectly well except in high gravity fields, generally stellar masses and above. I'm not all that familiar with quantum physics, I admit, but I don't think there's all that much of an effect on a macro scale. More reading for my list, I suppose.

Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

More reading for me! I'm not up on the effects of gravity waves, and planets moving in the troughs. It seems to make some sense, if indeed gravity is wavelike in nature. I'll have to look into it more deeply, when I can get the time.

[IAN 2411]

Now when the sun transitions to red giant status, its gravitational aspect will change, the allready existing pressure waves that act like troughs in the fabric of spacetime that the planets orbit within...will also change. Theorehtically unless there is a mass ejection wave none of the planets should get swallowed so much as shoved out as their orbitale trough moves.

A lot of this is way above my head, but it doesn’t really matter whether the earth is sucked in or pushed aside and possibly smashed into another planet. It is the end of earth and end of man as we know it now. Unless of course by that time man has mastered space and can transport the human race to another world.

Then again you have to ask yourself, that if this could be done, would this be the correct thing to do morally? Contaminate a virgin world with corrupt minds, war like races, felons of all denominations and sickness. Would it be Mortal survival or New World corruption, contamination and finally distruction? It might be that the unwritten law of the universe is for all life to live and perishon on the same planet.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

It is the end of earth and end of man as we know it now. Unless of course by that time man has mastered space and can transport the human race to another world.

By the time this happens, the human race will be as far removed from where we are now as we are from those tiny mole-like creatures that outlasted the dinosaurs. Assuming we haven't gone completely extinct before that.

Then again you have to ask yourself, that if this could be done, would this be the correct thing to do morally? Contaminate a virgin world with corrupt minds, war like races, felons of all denominations and sickness. Would it be Mortal survival or New World corruption, contamination and finally distruction? It might be that the unwritten law of the universe is for all life to live and perishon on the same planet.

Depends on whose morality you're talking about. Settlers from Europe did the "moral" thing and virtually wiped out those pesky pagan natives in the New World. The British did the "moral" thing and sent their convicts to Australia, overwhelming that native population. I suspect that, if we ever achieve the capability of moving out into the galaxy, the "moral" thing to do will involve very similar attitudes.

[IAN 2411]

I have had a burning question on my mind now for over two weeks since this thread started. This clockwise theory has been coming up every time I hear someone say clockwise. Why do we say the planets go around the sun in a clockwise motion? Do they, and who says so? The universe is vast and for all we know in the giganticness of it all we might be standing up on end and looking at ourselves from the wrong angle. There is no left, right, front, rear north, south, or east, west to the universe. We could be looking at the solar system from the wrong angle completely, and we could be going up and over or anti clockwise.

We seem as a space age world to spend a lot of money sending drone ships with telescopes that can see a billion light years away. However, I have yet to see a photo from one of these drones that is pointing to our own solar system, or maybe I am wrong in thinking that we have a probe that far out. If not, why not? We as a world have spent enough money sending rockets here there and everywhere? But the earth is still a little blue blob and going clockwise.

I think I would be right in saying that about 80% of the world’s oceans have never been mapped. We make all these rockets and probes to chart the universe and the interesting stuff is right on our own doorsteps. We can send men into space and bring them back into our atmosphere without them getting burnt to a crisp, and that’s after travelling 800.000km + round journey to the moon. Yet I notice we cannot send a manned submarine down to the bottom of some oceans. We know very little of our own world yet we want to know that other life exists.

I can only hope that we never find a plannet inhabited, because if history is anything to go by there won't be much left if they find a third world, world. No doubt by then the space ship will be made up of people from the new world order and colonise it. Then after the initial battle with the spear and stone throwing aliens, real population can be pushed onto reservations or into ghettoes. I think that is what the British and Irish settlers did in America, Australia and most points east.

Then again they might just get their ass kicked. Nothing new about that either LoL.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

Why do we say the planets go around the sun in a clockwise motion?

Actually, they move counter-clockwise! But it's merely convention. Since most western astronomers were in the northern hemisphere, they simply defined North as "Up". Using that convention the Earth turns towards the East, or counter-clockwise. Therefore, by convention, all planets, and the sun, are defined with East in the direction of their rotation. The North pole of the sun is defined as being "Up" relative to the solar system, so we conventionally view the solar system by looking "down" on it. Therefore, counter-clockwise rotations and revolutions.

We seem as a space age world to spend a lot of money sending drone ships with telescopes that can see a billion light years away. However, I have yet to see a photo from one of these drones that is pointing to our own solar system, or maybe I am wrong in thinking that we have a probe that far out.

There are two probes which have left the solar system, the Voyagers. But they are not telescopic probes. And one of them, Voyager 1 I believe, DID turn back and snap a picture of the solar system. Look at Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot". The telescopes you're thinking of are either in orbit or on the surface.

If not, why not?

It wouldn't work, really. You need to have the telescopes close enough to communicate with Earth in almost real time. The further away you get, the longer the communications take. And the narrower the bandwidth available to send back images.

I think I would be right in saying that about 80% of the world’s oceans have never been mapped.

I think it's much lower than that. I have a map of the Earth on my wall, showing all of the trenches, ridges, scarps, faults and other features on the bottoms of the seas. They may not be mapped to the nearest meter, at least not everywhere, but actually, it's cheaper, and easier, to map the moon than to map the ocean.

Yet I notice we cannot send a manned submarine down to the bottom of some oceans.

The Trieste, a manned submersible, descended to the bottom of the Marianas trench in 1960, reaching about 11km deep. Two more expeditions also reached the bottom, the latest in 2009. So we CAN do it. It's not easy, nor cheap, but it can be done.

I can only hope that we never find a plannet inhabited, because if history is anything to go by there won't be much left if they find a third world, world. No doubt by then the space ship will be made up of people from the new world order and colonise it.

It's pretty obvious that there's no world habitable by humans in our solar system. Anything beyond that is far out of our reach, at least for the foreseeable future. Hopefully, if we ever do achieve interstellar travel, we'll have learned to be more humane towards indigenous cultures. I won't hold my breath, though.

[IAN 2411]

Thanks for the link Thorne, very entertaining, but it was nothing new really from what I thought about, and what others thought was true when I was 10 years old. To be told the same thing again now I am 64, just shows the progress we have made in our thinking in 54 years. Well there is one change, because it has reached the dizzy heights of “You Tube” so it’s now official. Well if when we die we end up as little atoms floating about out there in the great black yonder. We might be able to meet up and check the rest of the cosmos out between us. Lmao.

Be well IAN 2411

[michaelwarlock]

there is no time ... time is something we've created to measure the years we live cause we are scared of death .and we think death is the end .
so no there is no such thing as time . we separate day from the night , we separate our hours in a day . we think those are different because we are doing something different .

I think death is just a beginning . I believe we all are one . in different bodies . but our souls are pieces of a big puzzle one united ball of energy called Universe.
not just us humans we all are one as In the Universe and we are one we all are part of it . we are universe in a shape of a human when we die we dont actually die we go back to our basic form . we reunited with what were were once . and I think our souls keep coming back until they are complete . until they learned that everything is nothing ...

As for what started the Universe .... I dotn think anyone knows but I have myh own theory that The Universe is unlimited there is no end nor no start to it . It always have been here and always will be . I know believing this theory is hard cause we have a tendency to find things starts and ends because out minds are limited its trapped in a bone shaped skull . we know there are other planets except for ours but what happens to them do they stop existing after a certain point > then after that what will it just be space ? still space is something so you know what I mean when I say Unlimited ?

[Thorne]

there is no time ... time is something we've created to measure the years we live cause we are scared of death .and we think death is the end .

A rather simplistic view. What you're talking about is a construct of humans, yes, but time is a fundamental part of the universe. How we measure time is not. And we measure it, not to mark the hours to death, but to regulate our lives, so we know when to plant, when to harvest, when to hunt (the earliest developments of measurement).

so no there is no such thing as time . we separate day from the night , we separate our hours in a day . we think those are different because we are doing something different .

We are doing different things because there are certain things you cannot do during certain times of day. Though with artificial lighting, those differences have become much smaller.

I think death is just a beginning . I believe we all are one . in different bodies . but our souls are pieces of a big puzzle one united ball of energy called Universe.

Nice thoughts, and you're entitled to your beliefs, but do you have any evidence of this? For starters, I'd love to see evidence for the existence of the soul. Mankind has been searching for that since - well, since the beginning of time!

we all are one as In the Universe and we are one we all are part of it . we are universe in a shape of a human when we die we dont actually die we go back to our basic form .

Well, in some sense you are almost right. We are all made from the same materials, and many those materials were once joined in the center of a star, so technically we are a part of that star. And when we die our bodies will revert to those component atoms and molecules again. But believe me, we'll be dead.

I think our souls keep coming back until they are complete .

Complete how? And again, evidence for these souls?

As for what started the Universe .... I dotn think anyone knows but I have myh own theory that The Universe is unlimited there is no end nor no start to it . It always have been here and always will be .

Well, we can agree here, at least. Except that the universe as we know it now did have a beginning (the Big Bang) and, as near as we can tell, will have an end (heat death), but there is no telling what other universes may be out there, or whether all that makes up this universe will merge with those other universes, somehow.

(our) minds are limited its trapped in a bone shaped skull .

Without that skull it's doubtful we would even have minds. Getting into really deep metaphysics here, but our minds are an emergent property of our brains. Without the skull, it's doubtful our brains would be able to develop sufficiently to produce what we think of as mind.

we know there are other planets except for ours but what happens to them do they stop existing after a certain point

Some of the planets in our Solar System will be absorbed into the Sun when it expands into a red giant. Others may wind up being either sucked in or pushed away, doomed to wander between the stars. But eventually, many trillions of years into the future, the universe as we know it will probably be a cold, dead, expanding cloud of dust and debris, expanding into infinity, with nothing to show that it was ever more than that.

[michaelwarlock]

Yes your right but I'm not talking about science here you want scientific facts and evidence I can not give you that but as for the evidence for our souls .... I don't know if you've ever heard about astrology and out of the body experiences and how you can be in different places at once . I have experienced this and I still do . Or your past life and who you were before . I can't say here are the evidence you are looking for and for this reason they exist but you can experience them yourself to see that not everything is based on evidence something's you have to feel and touch .

[Thorne]

Astrology? Hokum. It's been shown to be phony. Get three astrologers together and you'll get three different readings, because it's not based in reality.

Out of body experiences? More bunk. People may be able to relate things that happen in the room they are in, or that someone in that room discussed, because the mind is still working, even if you are unconscious. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been able to show real knowledge of events completely outside of the room. Science has shown that every tested out of body experience is nothing more than a dream state. Hallucinations, in other words.

not everything is based on evidence something's you have to feel and touch .

If they can be felt and touched, they are evidence based. If YOU are the only one who can feel them and touch them, however, chances are you are not in touch with reality.

For many years, the Amazing Randy has offered a one million dollar reward to anyone who can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, that psychic powers, or out of body experiences, or any kind of so-called spiritual activities, actually exist. Few, if any, well known psychics have been willing to attempt this, and those who have tried have all failed. They all have some excuse, but the reason is that these things do not exist.

[Thorne]

After seeing this thread revived after two years, I had to go back and reread all of the comments. I'm amazed at how intelligent (and how stupid, sometimes) I sounded back then.

I've missed these kinds of discussions. They seem to have dried up since the Big Crash.

[michaelwarlock]

If you don't think they exist then they don't for you .
Just because someone's reality is different that others doesn't say that they are not in touch with reality . They reality is different . Maybe they are not in touch with yours which makes it ok cause let's face it they are not you . Science has been proving and declining a lot of stuff someday someone discovers these things doesn't exist the next day he declines it cause he's seen it and now believes in it . Yet another person rises up and say he has gone crazy....
Ofcourse I'm not saying that is a bad thing . I'm just saying that sometimes you need to believe in what you feel is true . Science can not prove God but millions of people still believe in it and they bring 1001 reasons that he exist .
Out of the body experiences are real . Even if it's in the room it's still out of your body . Seeing things before they happen is real you and I both have been in a situation where we thought that we have been in it before .
Ofcourse I'm not trying to prove anything here .... This is my personal opinion . Maybe you are right and all this is just a dream or hallucination . Then again maybe not.

[Thorne]

Just because someone's reality is different that others doesn't say that they are not in touch with reality . They reality is different .

There are some seven billion people in this world. Are you claiming that there are some seven billion different realities? I find that a little hard to believe. Yes, there may be seven billion different PERCEPTIONS of reality, but there is only one reality. Something isn't true just because we want it to be true. It's only true when we can show evidence of it, measure it, observe it, either with our own senses or with the machines we create to enhance those senses.

Out of the body experiences are real .

No, they are not. You may think they are real, especially if you experience one, but there is no evidence, anywhere, that shows they are real. There's a lot of evidence to show that they are hallucinations caused by stresses in the brain. Researches have been able to induce OBE's in subjects by stimulating areas of the brain. The subject actually believes he or she was viewing their body from above, but have never been able to present evidence that it did, indeed, happen. Researches would place an item on or next to the subjects body, after they have been blindfolded, and to my knowledge no one has ever been able to identify those objects after their experience. Yet, the experience they describe is remarkably consistent with those experiences related by patients in hospitals who have had OBE's.

Seeing things before they happen is real you

Nope. Again, plenty of testing has been done, and there is no evidence for precognition. Much of what is believed to be precognition is actually our brains "tampering" with our memories to fill in the blanks.

you and I both have been in a situation where we thought that we have been in it before .

This is deja vu, and it is a real phenomenon, documented and studied for many years. But there is nothing psychic about it. Again, it's our brain responding to a stimulus, maybe recognizing something we've seen before, even if we cannot consciously remember it. One thing that science has consistently shown is that our brains are very good at tricking us. Just watch the series "Brain Games".

Ofcourse I'm not trying to prove anything here .... This is my personal opinion .

And you are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But you should be aware that fuzzy thinking, like believing in things that cannot be proven, can be costly. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are spent each year by sad people paying charlatans to contact their deceased loved ones. Billions of people live in abject misery because some charlatans tell them it's what their god wants. Children in this country (USA) die from preventable/treatable diseases every year because their parents believe that prayer is just as effective as medicine. Fuzzy thinking that allows them to deny reality in favor of their feel-good opinions.

Science can not prove God but millions of people still believe in it and they bring 1001 reasons that he exist .

Which god? There are millions of them, you know. And yes, billions of people believe in them, despite the lack of any evidence to show that any of them exist. And you are right, science cannot prove that gods do not exist, anymore than it can prove that unicorns do not exist, or fairies, or any of a seemingly infinite number of other made up things. But it's not science that has something to prove, here. Science does not make the claim that any gods exist. All science does is show us reality, and how that reality works. And none of those 1001 reasons that people put forth can be called evidence. They are speculations, based on ancient books and fairy tales.

[thir]

I think death is just a beginning . I believe we all are one . in different bodies . but our souls are pieces of a big puzzle one united ball of energy called Universe.

Nice thoughts, and you're entitled to your beliefs, but do you have any evidence of this? For starters, I'd love to see evidence for the existence of the soul. Mankind has been searching for that since - well, since the beginning of time!

I happened to watch a program in which some physics argued that in theory it is possible to have a soul. To do with quantum, of course, that the same thing can be in more than one place at the same time, and that what happens to 'one' happens to the 'other', regardless of distance.

[thir]

we all are one as In the Universe and we are one we all are part of it . we are universe in a shape of a human when we die we dont actually die we go back to our basic form .

Well, in some sense you are almost right. We are all made from the same materials, and many those materials were once joined in the center of a star, so technically we are a part of that star. And when we die our bodies will revert to those component atoms and molecules again. But believe me, we'll be dead.

Depending on how you define 'dead', a thing that even for humans have become more complicated lately. But that is BTW.

But it is true that we are all part of a dance of material, the same material, in ever changing forms, and always will be. Grass, sky, human, stone, pig, rain, whatever. Same pool of stuff.

[thir]

Some of the planets in our Solar System will be absorbed into the Sun when it expands into a red giant. Others may wind up being either sucked in or pushed away, doomed to wander between the stars. But eventually, many trillions of years into the future, the universe as we know it will probably be a cold, dead, expanding cloud of dust and debris, expanding into infinity, with nothing to show that it was ever more than that.

And then another big bang? :-))