I'm curious when it comes to life and thinking about it. it makes my head just hurt. it maybe a simple question, but it is one of mankind's most bizzar and mystery to date and still trying to figure it out to date. but i cant find any reasonable explanation i was just wandering any of you lot has any belief's answers or just what you think why is the point in life when it is not forever.
after death space inside of you becomess less dense and so you weight less
several experiments have been done measuring weight at death time
i did them myself too
several experiments have been done measuring weight at death time
i did them myself too
so your saying that once death has occurred space inside the body decreases in mass and weights less i thinks it decomposition
We are here for X years then we die. Everything you see around you including us is decoration for the passing on of genes. Have a good time while you're here because that is all there is.
amrit. Not on yourself I trust.
marc 1000. Be glad that eternal life is not true. If you don't spend it in drugged idiocy, smiling at god, then it is worse than hell.
A billion is 1,000,000,000. Imagine spending a billion years stuck in a corner looking at a wall. Then a billion years in a church pew on your knees praying to god. Then a billion years talking to the same people so that you have heard everything they have to say endless millions of times and can recite their every word, imitate their every inflection. Then a billion years just saying the number "One!"
That is the first second of eternity. Endless trillions of trillions more such seconds to go. Utter hell!
To quote from a recent TV series "Odyssey 5": There was twelve billion years in which I wasn't here, but I'm here now, and when I'm gone, there will be twelve billion years and more when I'm not here again. Not being here wasn't bad.
Cats, birds, insects, viruses, etc which all live shorter lives than us do not worry about death but live for now. Like a long lived virus, Man will one day be gone and forgotten from the Universe. We are nothing special, living on a speck of cosmic dust, circling one of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
A billion is 1,000,000,000. Imagine spending a billion years stuck in a corner looking at a wall. Then a billion years in a church pew on your knees praying to god. Then a billion years talking to the same people so that you have heard everything they have to say endless millions of times and can recite their every word, imitate their every inflection. Then a billion years just saying the number "One!"
That is the first second of eternity. Endless trillions of trillions more such seconds to go. Utter hell!
To quote from a recent TV series "Odyssey 5": There was twelve billion years in which I wasn't here, but I'm here now, and when I'm gone, there will be twelve billion years and more when I'm not here again. Not being here wasn't bad.
Cats, birds, insects, viruses, etc which all live shorter lives than us do not worry about death but live for now. Like a long lived virus, Man will one day be gone and forgotten from the Universe. We are nothing special, living on a speck of cosmic dust, circling one of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 9 2007, 11:18 AM)
We are nothing special, living on a speck of cosmic dust, circling one of 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.
Woolsey Teller by way of Carl Sagan?
I like that. Well said and well put.
And may I add:
"The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning."
- Matt Berry
Woolsey Teller by way of Carl Sagan?
I like that. Well said and well put.
And may I add:
"The meaning of life is to live a life of meaning."
- Matt Berry
thank you but please carry on this subject has no answer thats why i get confused thank you very much 
Why should there be a Meaning? why should there be a Point?
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 9 2007, 12:07 PM)
amrit. Not on yourself I trust.
Armit's 'experiment' involved weighing something like a worm both when alive and when dead. He claims he found that a 1g worm decreased in mass by 1 microgram, a change of 0.0001%. When I asked him about experimental error, how many times he did this, and what controls he had to justify an accuracy to such an astonishing level he was somewhat less than forthcoming with the answers. Infact, the notion of experimental error seemed somewhat lost on him. Considering the claim is a change in parts per million using 'low end' lab equipment and your own 2 hands, it's pretty important to consider experimental error.
But just like his 'planned' measurement of gravity in a mine shaft, actual real world considerations are not something Armit cares about.
Armit's 'experiment' involved weighing something like a worm both when alive and when dead. He claims he found that a 1g worm decreased in mass by 1 microgram, a change of 0.0001%. When I asked him about experimental error, how many times he did this, and what controls he had to justify an accuracy to such an astonishing level he was somewhat less than forthcoming with the answers. Infact, the notion of experimental error seemed somewhat lost on him. Considering the claim is a change in parts per million using 'low end' lab equipment and your own 2 hands, it's pretty important to consider experimental error.
But just like his 'planned' measurement of gravity in a mine shaft, actual real world considerations are not something Armit cares about.
QUOTE (marc_1000+Jan 9 2007, 10:19 AM)
so your saying that once death has occurred space inside the body decreases in mass and weights less i thinks it decomposition
no
space is more dense around living mass than around same dead mass
density of space determinates curvature and gravity force
more space is dense, more space is curve, stronger gravity
no
space is more dense around living mass than around same dead mass
density of space determinates curvature and gravity force
more space is dense, more space is curve, stronger gravity
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 9 2007, 11:05 AM)
We are here for X years then we die. Everything you see around you including us is decoration for the passing on of genes. Have a good time while you're here because that is all there is.
I agree, we only live for "X" years. But the important question is: how long can be "X".
X can become millions of years, or its limit can be simply undefined. There are many ways to extend "X" to become as big as you need.
- An obvious way is to accelerate your body to near the speed of light, but there are other ways that seem more interesting to me:
To start with something, there are two possible cases:
case_a) If your "mind" is something more than a neural network (or a natural machine), then it is clear that it may survive to the dead of your physical brain. In this scenery we do not know how it works, we only know that the "mind" is not linked to your physical body, "by definition".
case_b) Your "mind" is just the product of a neural network. In this scenery, we are near to a point where we will be able to create an artificial neural network with similar complexity than a natural brain. If Moore law continue as expected, and if our knowledge about brain workflow becomes completed, in a few years you will be able to transfer your natural "mind", both data and integrated functions, to an artificial machine, and then from one machine to another, as many times as required to live for billions of years, perhaps until the end of the universe. Technically, it is not forbidden. Even more, your mind could be improved by a million factor, it will be able to cover all the existing knowledge, and it could be mixed with other minds, or interact with them in different ways that we can not imagine today.
Both cases are equally interesting to me. We are at the start of a very interesting age, I only expect that my X will be big enough to see it.
I agree, we only live for "X" years. But the important question is: how long can be "X".
X can become millions of years, or its limit can be simply undefined. There are many ways to extend "X" to become as big as you need.
- An obvious way is to accelerate your body to near the speed of light, but there are other ways that seem more interesting to me:
To start with something, there are two possible cases:
case_a) If your "mind" is something more than a neural network (or a natural machine), then it is clear that it may survive to the dead of your physical brain. In this scenery we do not know how it works, we only know that the "mind" is not linked to your physical body, "by definition".
case_b) Your "mind" is just the product of a neural network. In this scenery, we are near to a point where we will be able to create an artificial neural network with similar complexity than a natural brain. If Moore law continue as expected, and if our knowledge about brain workflow becomes completed, in a few years you will be able to transfer your natural "mind", both data and integrated functions, to an artificial machine, and then from one machine to another, as many times as required to live for billions of years, perhaps until the end of the universe. Technically, it is not forbidden. Even more, your mind could be improved by a million factor, it will be able to cover all the existing knowledge, and it could be mixed with other minds, or interact with them in different ways that we can not imagine today.
Both cases are equally interesting to me. We are at the start of a very interesting age, I only expect that my X will be big enough to see it.
quite interesting about moving the mind (person's brain) into something that is last and run alot longer than the body, machine very interesting
AlphaNumeric. I remember I think a French guy about four decades ago who claimed that the body lost weight after death, etc. The trouble was that no one could back up his "facts" and I doubt that anyone remembers him now.
I can't speak for worms but when humans die, they usually get rid of all the air inside them as they do so (lungs collapse I suppose). This would account for a slight difference.
But as to worms, they need a humid environment. All the time they are out of it (out of the Earth), they are drying out, so losing weight.
I can't speak for worms but when humans die, they usually get rid of all the air inside them as they do so (lungs collapse I suppose). This would account for a slight difference.
But as to worms, they need a humid environment. All the time they are out of it (out of the Earth), they are drying out, so losing weight.
amrit. Gravity so curvature of space depends on mass and density. It does not rely on warmth and a beating heart.
javierxlxl. There is a discussion about artificial brains started by Futuretalk in the "Off Topic" section of the forum. Futuretalk does come up with some good topics but he is a little one dimensional in his approach to them.
what is it about that the brain stem can be place in a machine or something a long those line and what is it about
we dont have the ability to answer such questions as the meaning of it all which leads to the questions mystery. all we have at the moment are opinions.
its like trying to learn something from a text book that has all pictures, diagrams and words removed. how can we be expected to know if all we have is a cover.
so my opinion is that we are in no position to answer the question. what ever the answer is we are in no position to change the answer (or maybe we are???). you just have to sit back enjoy the ride and what ever will be will be.
although the most compelling answer I have seen of late is the idea described in god's debris by scott adams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris
if we knew the answer to the meaning of life etc, would that not make us god or at least no longer human.
its like trying to learn something from a text book that has all pictures, diagrams and words removed. how can we be expected to know if all we have is a cover.
so my opinion is that we are in no position to answer the question. what ever the answer is we are in no position to change the answer (or maybe we are???). you just have to sit back enjoy the ride and what ever will be will be.
although the most compelling answer I have seen of late is the idea described in god's debris by scott adams http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God's_Debris
if we knew the answer to the meaning of life etc, would that not make us god or at least no longer human.
marc 1000. This is another immortality wish. People think they would eventually be able to have their minds downloaded into essentially artificial bodies and then live the best of lives forever, but what makes us who we are if down to our own bodies, their limitations, even the chemicals they release into our brains. Given time, if you were "downloaded", the person you were would eventually become lost as would your humanity.
As essentially a machine, you would never tire or grow sick, though you could break down. You would never know the pleasure of eating or drinking again. Probably never dream. Never push yourself to go that "extra mile" because machines have set limitations. Never love or hate or have any moods because your body would not utilise the chemicals that do this, so never be happy or sad. Never know love or have sex. Never have children. Probably you would see no need for friends after a time. We try to accomplish things now because of our short lives but if you lived a few million years, what's the hurry? You could learn a new language in a minute or two and do similar things but the best things in life have to be worked for. How can you appreciate something that is as hard as standing up?
As essentially a machine, you would never tire or grow sick, though you could break down. You would never know the pleasure of eating or drinking again. Probably never dream. Never push yourself to go that "extra mile" because machines have set limitations. Never love or hate or have any moods because your body would not utilise the chemicals that do this, so never be happy or sad. Never know love or have sex. Never have children. Probably you would see no need for friends after a time. We try to accomplish things now because of our short lives but if you lived a few million years, what's the hurry? You could learn a new language in a minute or two and do similar things but the best things in life have to be worked for. How can you appreciate something that is as hard as standing up?
well i would like to live my life but i don't the ending the pain and suffering and death i don't want that i want to see the earth i want to see it to grow i would like to be a god but that is impossible cos he isn't really there is he but i love life i don't to lose it.
The best thing any of us can do is hope to enjoy the lifespan we have here because it is all we have in this world. I know a number of people who died suddenly (often smokers) believing they had decades more to live. Death is certain so there is no point in worrying about it any more than worrying about paying our taxes. Live like you expect to make it to 100 and don't be afraid to enjoy yourself. Don't make too many anchors to tie yourself down.
If you are not married, don't rush into it. Plenty of time to see the world and do all you want to do rather than dedicating it all to a wife who will nag you and ungrateful kids who will take your money. Live life first rather than when the kids are finally gone and you're fifty-something. Whatever your taste, there are probably a few hundred million people in the world who will be "just the right partner for you". That is what love boils down to. Here in Bangkok I can pick up a beautiful twenty year old girl for half what I earned in one day.
Everyone has to go through pain and suffering at times. It is par for the course with our weak bodies. I have known many who died and cancer is one way to get plenty of pain and suffering. Half of all smokers die because they smoked, and if there is a hell and you go there after dying of lung cancer, you'll think you've gone to heaven. Smokers start dying aged 35 so don't smoke. It is a very costly way of committing suicide.
Life is ultimately what we make it. If you are in a dead end job with poor money, look for another one. The most successful people have often been those with nothing to lose so who have been willing to take a big risk.
If you are not married, don't rush into it. Plenty of time to see the world and do all you want to do rather than dedicating it all to a wife who will nag you and ungrateful kids who will take your money. Live life first rather than when the kids are finally gone and you're fifty-something. Whatever your taste, there are probably a few hundred million people in the world who will be "just the right partner for you". That is what love boils down to. Here in Bangkok I can pick up a beautiful twenty year old girl for half what I earned in one day.
Everyone has to go through pain and suffering at times. It is par for the course with our weak bodies. I have known many who died and cancer is one way to get plenty of pain and suffering. Half of all smokers die because they smoked, and if there is a hell and you go there after dying of lung cancer, you'll think you've gone to heaven. Smokers start dying aged 35 so don't smoke. It is a very costly way of committing suicide.
Life is ultimately what we make it. If you are in a dead end job with poor money, look for another one. The most successful people have often been those with nothing to lose so who have been willing to take a big risk.
kaneda,
Well said. The point of life is to enjoy more than not enjoy. Life is emotion without it life would have no meaning. Although I would like a longer stay there are over one billion eligible women in the world at any one time. Women would be the last part of life that I would become tired of I think.
Amrit,
Things weigh less as they cool because you do not have the upward lift of expanded molecules. You need more than one area of education to have enough knowledge for a reasonable conclusion.
Well said. The point of life is to enjoy more than not enjoy. Life is emotion without it life would have no meaning. Although I would like a longer stay there are over one billion eligible women in the world at any one time. Women would be the last part of life that I would become tired of I think.
Amrit,
Things weigh less as they cool because you do not have the upward lift of expanded molecules. You need more than one area of education to have enough knowledge for a reasonable conclusion.
I am a born again Christian. I like to think I am objective though about my religious beliefs. I read a lot of Physics and Math. I used to be an evolutionist, but through a vast amount of reading and study I have come to realize that the infiniteness of space, the unfathonable complexity of the human genetic programme, the never ending complexity of subatomic particles and other theories, and many other unfathomable mysteries all around us, all these things point to a creator whose methods and knowledge are for the most part beyond us, and will remain so for all eternity. There will always be more that we don't know, more mysteries, no matter much we advance in our knowledge. The amazing thing to me is that more people don't see how God and his infinite wisdom is so evident if you just stop and take a close look at the world around you.
QUOTE (brupen+Jan 17 2007, 10:48 PM)
I am a born again Christian. I like to think I am objective though about my religious beliefs. I read a lot of Physics and Math. I used to be an evolutionist, but through a vast amount of reading and study I have come to realize that the infiniteness of space, the unfathonable complexity of the human genetic programme, the never ending complexity of subatomic particles and other theories, and many other unfathomable mysteries all around us, all these things point to a creator whose methods and knowledge are for the most part beyond us, and will remain so for all eternity. There will always be more that we don't know, more mysteries, no matter much we advance in our knowledge. The amazing thing to me is that more people don't see how God and his infinite wisdom is so evident if you just stop and take a close look at the world around you.
I think you are in the wrong forum for this kind of “discussion”. There are a few idiots in this
forum, but most are highly educated, unlike me, and will not entertain your attempts of
engagement. They can see right through your statements of facts, then blind faith-based
conclusions.
Try these Disregard the (*) in the middle of the (http). It appears I am not allowed to attach
links yet (ht*tp://www.religiousforums.com/) (ht*tp://debatingchristianity.com/) or I think this
one may suit you better, since you are versed in science (ht*tp://www.srforum.org/)
I think you are in the wrong forum for this kind of “discussion”. There are a few idiots in this
forum, but most are highly educated, unlike me, and will not entertain your attempts of
engagement. They can see right through your statements of facts, then blind faith-based
conclusions.
Try these Disregard the (*) in the middle of the (http). It appears I am not allowed to attach
links yet (ht*tp://www.religiousforums.com/) (ht*tp://debatingchristianity.com/) or I think this
one may suit you better, since you are versed in science (ht*tp://www.srforum.org/)
QUOTE (physicsguy+Jan 18 2007, 08:29 AM)
I think you are in the wrong forum for this kind of “discussion”. There are a few idiots in this
forum, but most are highly educated, unlike me, and will not entertain your attempts of
engagement. They can see right through your statements of facts, then blind faith-based
conclusions.
Try these Disregard the (*) in the middle of the (http). It appears I am not allowed to attach
links yet (ht*tp://www.religiousforums.com/) (ht*tp://debatingchristianity.com/) or I think this
one may suit you better, since you are versed in science (ht*tp://www.srforum.org/)
I am not trying to engage anyone on this topic, Physicsguy. But there is none as blind as those who will not see. I do not operate on blind faith - I do not have to:the the world around me is proof enough that there is a creator. Many thousands of your superiors feel the same as I do about God. And as you should know, the bulk of modern physics these days is founded on "blind faith". However, I am sorry if I have used the wrong forum. I am brand new at this. Thanks for the links. God bless.
forum, but most are highly educated, unlike me, and will not entertain your attempts of
engagement. They can see right through your statements of facts, then blind faith-based
conclusions.
Try these Disregard the (*) in the middle of the (http). It appears I am not allowed to attach
links yet (ht*tp://www.religiousforums.com/) (ht*tp://debatingchristianity.com/) or I think this
one may suit you better, since you are versed in science (ht*tp://www.srforum.org/)
I am not trying to engage anyone on this topic, Physicsguy. But there is none as blind as those who will not see. I do not operate on blind faith - I do not have to:the the world around me is proof enough that there is a creator. Many thousands of your superiors feel the same as I do about God. And as you should know, the bulk of modern physics these days is founded on "blind faith". However, I am sorry if I have used the wrong forum. I am brand new at this. Thanks for the links. God bless.
QUOTE (brupen+Jan 18 2007, 08:45 PM)
I am not trying to engage anyone on this topic, Physicsguy. But there is none as blind as those who will not see. I do not operate on blind faith - I do not have to:the the world around me is proof enough that there is a creator. Many thousands of your superiors feel the same as I do about God. And as you should know, the bulk of modern physics these days is founded on "blind faith". However, I am sorry if I have used the wrong forum. I am brand new at this. Thanks for the links. God bless.
I wouldn't leave the board on the say of physicsguy brupen. There are already several heated religious debates here, some that would benefit from your point of view. The best example of this is Radioactive Dating Exposed.
Welcome and have fun
I wouldn't leave the board on the say of physicsguy brupen. There are already several heated religious debates here, some that would benefit from your point of view. The best example of this is Radioactive Dating Exposed.
Welcome and have fun
I sum up the meaning of life in one word.....it is to survive
QUOTE
The answer to life, the universe, and everything is(dramatic pause) 42... When you figure out what the question is, you'll understand.
Douglas Adams
-Q
javierxlxl. I am not sure you would age less if you travelled near light speed. The facts that atomic clocks with moving parts move slower when undergoing the rigours of acceleration and being knocked about does not mean it does. But even if it did, a trillion years voyage where we age only 50 years would seem like only 50 years to us (Sexton Blake pointed out similar in a story written some 40-odd years ago to the villain).
Also I think we could reach a point where chemical reactions have lost enough speed that they are no longer able to take place so all living things would die.
Also I think we could reach a point where chemical reactions have lost enough speed that they are no longer able to take place so all living things would die.
4Dguy. I find women too much hassle now. They are never straight forward and men have to jump through hoops for them as though they were somehow special rather than just 1 in 3,000,000,000. Life is a lot easier without them.
brupen. Most atheists were christians at one time but saw that god was wrong.
The bible is full of mistakes and tells us nothing about the world around us.
To not understand everything and so claim "godmusthavedoneit" is a defeatist attitude. Science still has a long way to go but has explained many, many things and proven evolution.
DNA or RNA comes from just four basic molecules so is nothing to do with lying statistics used by creationist sites. Maybe a dozen labs are working independantly to create artificial life from inanimate matter and expect results in 10-20 years. So, who needs god?
If you are going to talk christianity and more important creationism on a science forum, and not even in the creation/evolution zone, you must expect people to be critical of you and your beliefs.
The bible is full of mistakes and tells us nothing about the world around us.
To not understand everything and so claim "godmusthavedoneit" is a defeatist attitude. Science still has a long way to go but has explained many, many things and proven evolution.
DNA or RNA comes from just four basic molecules so is nothing to do with lying statistics used by creationist sites. Maybe a dozen labs are working independantly to create artificial life from inanimate matter and expect results in 10-20 years. So, who needs god?
If you are going to talk christianity and more important creationism on a science forum, and not even in the creation/evolution zone, you must expect people to be critical of you and your beliefs.
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 19 2007, 08:18 AM)
4Dguy. I find women too much hassle now. They are never straight forward and men have to jump through hoops for them as though they were somehow special rather than just 1 in 3,000,000,000. Life is a lot easier without them.
Life might be eaiser without women, but I'll take with it's much more fun.
Life might be eaiser without women, but I'll take with it's much more fun.
Women are OK when I want them but I'm not going to let take over my life. When I decided I could take or leave women and I found I could ignore them, it was like a breath of freedom. People (men and women) don't realise how tied down they are by the opposite sex.
QUOTE (marc_1000+Jan 8 2007, 10:54 AM)
I'm curious when it comes to life and thinking about it. it makes my head just hurt. it maybe a simple question, but it is one of mankind's most bizzar and mystery to date and still trying to figure it out to date. but i cant find any reasonable explanation i was just wandering any of you lot has any belief's answers or just what you think why is the point in life when it is not forever.
There is a dicotomy; body and soul. The body dies. The soul lives on forever wherever it belongs - Heaven or Hell.
We are more than one thing.
There is a dicotomy; body and soul. The body dies. The soul lives on forever wherever it belongs - Heaven or Hell.
We are more than one thing.
Nick. Your posts would be better if you backed them with evidence instead of just making bland statements.
QUOTE (kaneda+Jan 19 2007, 08:18 AM)
4Dguy. I find women too much hassle now. They are never straight forward and men have to jump through hoops for them as though they were somehow special rather than just 1 in 3,000,000,000. Life is a lot easier without them.
Only a social loser would make such a statement.
Trust me, the women you find to be 'too much hassle', don't miss you.
Only a social loser would make such a statement.
Trust me, the women you find to be 'too much hassle', don't miss you.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 10 2007, 10:48 AM)
Nick. Your posts would be better if you backed them with evidence instead of just making bland statements.
What's the matter with my personal belief ken?
What's the matter with my personal belief ken?
QUOTE (1 in 3000000000+Feb 10 2007, 06:03 PM)
Only a social loser would make such a statement.
Trust me, the women you find to be 'too much hassle', don't miss you.
Funny how women always get bitter and twisted when you say you no longer care about women in that way. Even if they would not touch you with a bargepole, they see such talk as a threat to their domination of males.
I am on a 3 month stay in Bangkok. If I want a woman I can go out and pick up a 20 year old beauty for very little money. I feed feral cats and birds when back home in France but don't want one as a pet because a pet, like a wife is there whether you want them or not.
Trust me, the women you find to be 'too much hassle', don't miss you.
Funny how women always get bitter and twisted when you say you no longer care about women in that way. Even if they would not touch you with a bargepole, they see such talk as a threat to their domination of males.
I am on a 3 month stay in Bangkok. If I want a woman I can go out and pick up a 20 year old beauty for very little money. I feed feral cats and birds when back home in France but don't want one as a pet because a pet, like a wife is there whether you want them or not.
Nick. If I answered your statement elsewhere that black holes don't exist with; they do, so there, what has that accomplished? If you just make a bland statement, it is just an opinion.
To talk of the soul on a science site needs evidence.
To talk of the soul on a science site needs evidence.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 11 2007, 07:20 AM)
Nick. If I answered your statement elsewhere that black holes don't exist with; they do, so there, what has that accomplished? If you just make a bland statement, it is just an opinion.
To talk of the soul on a science site needs evidence.
I have plenty of reasons for saying black hole don't exist.
Why does one need evidence for the soul?
To talk of the soul on a science site needs evidence.
I have plenty of reasons for saying black hole don't exist.
Why does one need evidence for the soul?
Nick. You have not given any reasons to explain why a black hole cannot exist other than wishful thoughts.
A soul goes against everything we know so is impossible, so must be proved (like god, Santa Claus and other mythical things).
A soul goes against everything we know so is impossible, so must be proved (like god, Santa Claus and other mythical things).
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 13 2007, 04:23 AM)
Nick. You have not given any reasons to explain why a black hole cannot exist other than wishful thoughts.
A soul goes against everything we know so is impossible, so must be proved (like god, Santa Claus and other mythical things).
Is it a wishful though to doubt that there are two different times;one for around a black hole and another for inside?
I am sorry but this disproves black holes on the spot. Light can always get out because there is no end to time. And if there is no end to time there are no event horizons. And if there are no event horizons light will always get out.
Why again must a soul be proved? I don't follow you.
A soul goes against everything we know so is impossible, so must be proved (like god, Santa Claus and other mythical things).
Is it a wishful though to doubt that there are two different times;one for around a black hole and another for inside?
I am sorry but this disproves black holes on the spot. Light can always get out because there is no end to time. And if there is no end to time there are no event horizons. And if there are no event horizons light will always get out.
Why again must a soul be proved? I don't follow you.
Nick. What time? Time is a mathematical concept.
Light travels through space. We know that if you bend space (by gravity), then light which travels through it will bend too. If space is bent sufficiently by a black hole, then curvature of space is such that there are no paths for light to get out of a black hole.
"no end to time" is an idea and not a fact.
Escape velocity for a neutron star is 2/3 light speed. Why should it not exceed light speed when even neutrons are crushed to denser matter?
If there is no event horizon, then you have material at a trillion degrees centigrade. Brilliance of a star is measured by it's temerature. Our Sun is about 6,000.C on it's surface so appears very bright. How bright do you think something which is 1,000,000,000,000.C would be on it's surface? Such a light would seem like a searchlight even from the edge of the universe. The few million solar mass black hole at our Galaxy's centre would blind us with it's brilliance, despite any intervening material. Why can't we see it?
A soul is impossible. Name one reason a soul should exist.
Light travels through space. We know that if you bend space (by gravity), then light which travels through it will bend too. If space is bent sufficiently by a black hole, then curvature of space is such that there are no paths for light to get out of a black hole.
"no end to time" is an idea and not a fact.
Escape velocity for a neutron star is 2/3 light speed. Why should it not exceed light speed when even neutrons are crushed to denser matter?
If there is no event horizon, then you have material at a trillion degrees centigrade. Brilliance of a star is measured by it's temerature. Our Sun is about 6,000.C on it's surface so appears very bright. How bright do you think something which is 1,000,000,000,000.C would be on it's surface? Such a light would seem like a searchlight even from the edge of the universe. The few million solar mass black hole at our Galaxy's centre would blind us with it's brilliance, despite any intervening material. Why can't we see it?
A soul is impossible. Name one reason a soul should exist.
i do think the actual soul is someones personality like if i got my head took out my brain and planted it in someone Else's body then i will still be my self but with a new physical body and a little confuse of why i did it
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 13 2007, 07:05 AM)
Nick. What time? Time is a mathematical concept.
Light travels through space. We know that if you bend space (by gravity), then light which travels through it will bend too. If space is bent sufficiently by a black hole, then curvature of space is such that there are no paths for light to get out of a black hole.
"no end to time" is an idea and not a fact.
Escape velocity for a neutron star is 2/3 light speed. Why should it not exceed light speed when even neutrons are crushed to denser matter?
If there is no event horizon, then you have material at a trillion degrees centigrade. Brilliance of a star is measured by it's temerature. Our Sun is about 6,000.C on it's surface so appears very bright. How bright do you think something which is 1,000,000,000,000.C would be on it's surface? Such a light would seem like a searchlight even from the edge of the universe. The few million solar mass black hole at our Galaxy's centre would blind us with it's brilliance, despite any intervening material. Why can't we see it?
A soul is impossible. Name one reason a soul should exist.
You are being just like Nick, but in reverse... you explain quite a bit for the existence of black holes, but you merely give your opinion that "a soul is impossible" without explaining why.
I would just like to point out that nobody in this thread has any clue what they are talking about when they pretend like science can prove or disprove things like this. There is no evidence one way or another, so why don't you stop pretending like you know differently?
----
Oh, and off topic, where did you get that idea that neutron stars have an escape velocity of 2/3 C? Surely neutron stars can be larger... large enough to have an escape velocity of 1 C, in which case it can form a "black hole" without degenerating into quarks.
To say with certainty that a black hole must be made of a material denser than neutrons, you would have to know the degeneracy pressure threshold for a neutron turning into quarks... and you obviously don't know that b/c nobody has ever been able to do it or see it.
In other words, have you ever seen a quark star? No. So why do you think a star can only trap light after it degenerates into quarks.
The threshold may indeed be before C as you are assuming, meaning that light will still be able to escape from any kind of neutron body, but there is an equal probability (with the evidence that we have) that the degeneracy pressure threshold may be after C, which means that a neutron body that is massive enough could trap light, and whether it turns into a quark body after that point can never be determined.
Light travels through space. We know that if you bend space (by gravity), then light which travels through it will bend too. If space is bent sufficiently by a black hole, then curvature of space is such that there are no paths for light to get out of a black hole.
"no end to time" is an idea and not a fact.
Escape velocity for a neutron star is 2/3 light speed. Why should it not exceed light speed when even neutrons are crushed to denser matter?
If there is no event horizon, then you have material at a trillion degrees centigrade. Brilliance of a star is measured by it's temerature. Our Sun is about 6,000.C on it's surface so appears very bright. How bright do you think something which is 1,000,000,000,000.C would be on it's surface? Such a light would seem like a searchlight even from the edge of the universe. The few million solar mass black hole at our Galaxy's centre would blind us with it's brilliance, despite any intervening material. Why can't we see it?
A soul is impossible. Name one reason a soul should exist.
You are being just like Nick, but in reverse... you explain quite a bit for the existence of black holes, but you merely give your opinion that "a soul is impossible" without explaining why.
I would just like to point out that nobody in this thread has any clue what they are talking about when they pretend like science can prove or disprove things like this. There is no evidence one way or another, so why don't you stop pretending like you know differently?
----
Oh, and off topic, where did you get that idea that neutron stars have an escape velocity of 2/3 C? Surely neutron stars can be larger... large enough to have an escape velocity of 1 C, in which case it can form a "black hole" without degenerating into quarks.
To say with certainty that a black hole must be made of a material denser than neutrons, you would have to know the degeneracy pressure threshold for a neutron turning into quarks... and you obviously don't know that b/c nobody has ever been able to do it or see it.
In other words, have you ever seen a quark star? No. So why do you think a star can only trap light after it degenerates into quarks.
The threshold may indeed be before C as you are assuming, meaning that light will still be able to escape from any kind of neutron body, but there is an equal probability (with the evidence that we have) that the degeneracy pressure threshold may be after C, which means that a neutron body that is massive enough could trap light, and whether it turns into a quark body after that point can never be determined.
The best way to die right is to to live a right life.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
From my understanding of the universe you cant reach the edge because it is constantly expanding at the sped of light. So could you reach the center? Personally i think that the human race will live on forever, wich would be very boring and meaningless after a while - the center of the universe, assuming there is one, seems like a good place to look for a meaning. Maybe somone left a note there explaing how this all came into being and why.
QUOTE (Locke+Mar 15 2007, 12:00 AM)
Personally i think that the human race will live on forever
Personally i think an asteroid will wipe us out or something before forever rolls around lol
Personally i think an asteroid will wipe us out or something before forever rolls around lol
THE MEANING OF LIFE IS NOT THE ANSWER. IT IS THE MEANING OF YOUR LIFE THAT IS.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Latrosicarius. I have given reasons why a soul cannot/does not exist in a number of other threads. Here are some of them :
If you alter the brain in any way (surgery, drugs, impact accidents, etc), you alter the personality. No soul has anything to do with who we are.
We can effectively read minds in that we can detect electrical impulses in the brain and where they come from. Nothing to do with any mysterious soul. When someone dies, we cannot detect any brain or electrical signals from anything leaving the body.
We are who we are because of the brain's structure, the chemicals which feed the brain and the body and environment we live in. None of these would be present in/for a soul so you had a soul, it would not be you.
The soul is said to be totally immaterial so how could it hang onto a body? How could it record and store brain signals? What senses would it have since it cannot detect photons, sound, etc?
In thousands of years, no religion has shown that a soul exists. Science cannot detect one either.
A soul relies on a god and I have proven elsewhere that a god cannot exist.
Science cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist which means by your logic that he must exist?
If you alter the brain in any way (surgery, drugs, impact accidents, etc), you alter the personality. No soul has anything to do with who we are.
We can effectively read minds in that we can detect electrical impulses in the brain and where they come from. Nothing to do with any mysterious soul. When someone dies, we cannot detect any brain or electrical signals from anything leaving the body.
We are who we are because of the brain's structure, the chemicals which feed the brain and the body and environment we live in. None of these would be present in/for a soul so you had a soul, it would not be you.
The soul is said to be totally immaterial so how could it hang onto a body? How could it record and store brain signals? What senses would it have since it cannot detect photons, sound, etc?
In thousands of years, no religion has shown that a soul exists. Science cannot detect one either.
A soul relies on a god and I have proven elsewhere that a god cannot exist.
Science cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist which means by your logic that he must exist?
Latrosicarius. By observation, astronomers have set limits for neutron stars and black holes, what makes them, minimum masses, etc. I admit to not knowing enough to contradict astronomers as you are doing.
The mass, size and gravitational fields of neutron stars can be measured and they seem to be pretty standard, around 11 miles in diameter. A neutron star comes from a final mass of 2-3 solar masses. More than that and you have a black hole. There is very little room for manoeuver here and possibly a neutron star near the upper limit swallowing an Earth sized planet could collapse into a black hole from the extra mass. A black hole could be the fate of many neutron stars as they gain ever more mass.
The mass, size and gravitational fields of neutron stars can be measured and they seem to be pretty standard, around 11 miles in diameter. A neutron star comes from a final mass of 2-3 solar masses. More than that and you have a black hole. There is very little room for manoeuver here and possibly a neutron star near the upper limit swallowing an Earth sized planet could collapse into a black hole from the extra mass. A black hole could be the fate of many neutron stars as they gain ever more mass.
kaneda,
I think you should re-read my post. You seem to think I was implying something that I was not.
About the soul portion... I was never making a defense for its existence. I was just pointing out how it is quite annoying when people say with certainty that it "definitely exists" or "definitely does not exist".
About the neutron star forming a black hole... Do you think I was implying something different? I agree with that, and I never said anything to the contrary.
All I was trying to point out is that once a neutron star exceeds the C escape velocity threshold, it turns into a black hole. BUT... It's STILL a neutron star on the inside. Nothing changes about it.
Of course, given enough mass, it may eventually transition into a quark star or further degenerate matter models, but ALL I was pointing out is that there's not unnecessarily anything different between a neutron star and a black hole other than increased gravity.
If you think I was saying anything different, please point it out the inconsistency because I was NOT trying to do so.
I think you should re-read my post. You seem to think I was implying something that I was not.
About the soul portion... I was never making a defense for its existence. I was just pointing out how it is quite annoying when people say with certainty that it "definitely exists" or "definitely does not exist".
About the neutron star forming a black hole... Do you think I was implying something different? I agree with that, and I never said anything to the contrary.
All I was trying to point out is that once a neutron star exceeds the C escape velocity threshold, it turns into a black hole. BUT... It's STILL a neutron star on the inside. Nothing changes about it.
Of course, given enough mass, it may eventually transition into a quark star or further degenerate matter models, but ALL I was pointing out is that there's not unnecessarily anything different between a neutron star and a black hole other than increased gravity.
If you think I was saying anything different, please point it out the inconsistency because I was NOT trying to do so.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.