 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) kurtbatz |
Date: October 24th, 2004 08:56 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My knowledge of Satanism is limited but even I knew the news articles were based on limited research and/or limited copy space.
On Interests:
I've been fascinated with sleep or more appropriately dreaming since I was a child of about eight and learned that I could tell when I was asleep. Since then I've become vivid and lucid, I've deprived my self of sleep till I hallucinated just to see what it was like, I've managed to pull of being 'awake during sleep paralysis'...which isn't really awake and would be very scary if you didn't know what was happening, this list could go on and go into more detail but I'll stop now.
Most people think they have nightmares only once in a while. Truth is that if you can remember enough of your deeper REM states you will find that you often dream things that would be considered nightmare material. The subconscious mind is not a pretty place, often because it's being honest to a level that no one wants to deal with. However if you can get past the fear that these dreams create then you can dissect the dream to find out what your mind wants to tell you. It's not magic, if anything it's like learning to read an extra language that is based more in pictures than words. Everyones dream language is different to top it off, so trying to interpret other peoples dreams is touch and go even if you know them well.
Odd side note, maybe a bit of pride thrown in. People who I spend enough time around often find that even if they seemed to never dream they suddenly find themselves either remembering dreams or while dreaming realizing they are dreaming. Again it's not magic, I often talk about dream stuff and it puts the idea in their mind. Of course if they show interest I will also tell them how to figure out if they are awake or asleep...it's easier than most people think.
On Philosophy and Websites:
I have been a, philosophy beats 'god' based type religions, person for as long as I can remember. I don't post to any of the boards on philosophy though and have nothing that even resembles your website, your website is wonderfully informative. I've thought about trying to make a site, mine would probably be mostly about sleep, dreams and polyamory.
I did try to start a Dead Journal for Saskatchewan Poly's to join. The results were less than pleasing. I got people who wanted another or just a female to join and/or possibly fix their damaged sexual lives...I want one of those T-shirts that say "I'm a Poly, Bi, Switch and I Still Won't Sleep With You!", then I could just point at it and save my voice. I started the journal part way into an unsuccessful attempt to meet local polyamorous people. I could go on at length about what I later referred to as 'educating the prairies one redneck at a time'. I'm still looking but not with as much zeal as I threw into it a year ago...repeated disappointment has taken my edge off. I've failed to find another truly polyamorous person in this city (population estimate 31 Dec 2003 – 205,300).
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: March 4th, 2006 08:24 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
The fundamental problem Vexen...
|
Vexen, the fundamental problem w/your conclusions is that "If" a Creator exists{which personally, I do personally see as "probable"-yet not "certain"}is that this "God" must therefore be omnipotent and omniscient.
Now, the Monotheists and Theists may think this of their Deities, but who's to say that a first cause Creator even knows that we exist as a by-product of its Cretion? The possible existence of a Creator or intelligently Creative force does not automatically demand that it is omnipotent and omniscient. It may well be moreso than we are at our current stage or evolution{of course it itself could be in a state of evolution or regression of evolution,who knows?}-but that does'nt make it ALL-so anymore than we are in comparisons to lesser evolved animals than ourselves-just because we may know more or have more abilitiies than some of them..
Then,on the other hand, perhaps we have reached a higher stage of evolution in many ways than said Creator, whilst perhspas in other areas it is more evolved.
This is, of course, all speculation. Though I lean towards Deism and PanenDeism/Pandeism{extensionf of deism}, I make no copnclusions about the Creators or Creative intelligent forces nature or levelof ability. We simply don't know enough{yet}, one can conclude n the personal intellectual level that they think it "probable" that a Creator/Creative force does or does not exist{Deisms/Atheisms} but neither has enough evidences to make any absolute claims; therefore for Deists or atheists/agnostics arguing from the perspective of a one supposing a Creator/deity/god/etc exists to make such conclusions based on the idea that "if" a Creator exists it must be omnipotent and omniscient is a fallacy.
Therefore, your essay saying "God does'nt need,etc, in order to,etc"{in relations to souls or anyhting else} is incomplete logic, for it starts from the assumption that a Creator must be "OMNI"{just as theists assume of their deities}.
Positive criticism, no offense meant bro.
Hail thyself!
In Reason:
Bill Baker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: vexen |
Date: June 14th, 2006 10:23 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
1. You're just making stuff up about "souls" now. What reason is there to think that souls would exist?
2. Predestination: I really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to this. The universe is not necessarily one great big cycle and even if it was, the effects of the potential singularities at the big bang/big crunch, would mean that no information is passed from one cycle to the next; including universal constants, so that no cycle would be exactly the same. Predestination does not require repetition, it only requiers a strict cause-and-effect from the beginning of time, until the end of time.
3. Nietzsche did not know any quantum physics, and could not possibly have an understanding of the mathematics of time, dimensions or the big bang. His idea of "eternal recurrance" (which I think you are referring to) was related to Human Behaviour in a psychological, political and sociological sense but not in a scientific one.
4. If what you say is true, though, and everything cycles repetitively, then it doesn't *matter* whether there is any "point" to it. It wouldn't be done because of the "point" of doing it, but simply things would be done because they are *caused* by previous events.
In determinism, in real life, there is no ultimate teleological "point" to anything, and the question of "point" has no meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
From: avyakt7 |
Date: July 23rd, 2006 11:30 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
1. About Souls: You can feel. Not physical pain. Bliss, peace, purity.. those things only souls can feel. Our thoughts. They are inmaterial and they drive our existance. It is impossible for a physical thing such as the brain to "create" inmaterial things like thoughts. Release of chemicals are out of the question, or course. 2.Predestination does require repetition. Otherwise with linear time you cannot answer 2 questions: what was before? (cause and effect) The so called big bang has to explain how atoms of helium got there in the first place before the "collision." AND you need to explain the 3 aspects of time: There is always a PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE. This is a chracteristic of time. What was before the "creation point?" there was no PAST. On the other hand, the cycle fits this nicely. Because there is always a PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE and There is always a cause for an effect. The question of wh is first, the chicken or the egg? is answered, as long as there is a "point of reference" as Einstein explained. Predestination means repetition because as Poincare explained in his theorem of recurrence that matter after "x" changes necessarily will go back to its former form. Here is more to it: http://www.godhascome.org/images/Time.htmCycles are exactly the same. History ans geography repeats exactly the same. 3. Scientist nowadays know nothing about time either. (see the unresolved problem of the arrow of time) and quantum physics is a fancy name to describe that "randomness" is scientific. Once you know that time is predestined, there is no question about "randomness." The big bang itself is an idea which originated by a priest-scientist. Once time is understood as being cyclical then creationsism as well as Big-bang ism are gone. I invite you to read this: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdf is about the "new theory of time" being cyclical. AND this: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.htmlNietzche had an insight and recurrence means "time." Time applies to every branch of knowledge. Matter cannot be created neither destroyed.. it only transforms... until it becomes the same one more time... 4. Once you understand cyclical time you see that the past is the future and the future is the past. Since we are eternal souls, which means we cannot be created neither destroyed, what an eternal soul is supposed to do? Here on the physical plane when there is time because time is intimately related with matter and its transformation, souls experience dualism which is the full range of experiences that we can have: From new something becomes old and then back to new... from low entropy something becomes higher and then lower again...this is simple thermodynamics. Souls do experience these in this physical world. Everything is caused by a previous event, that is why time is cyclical. If it was linear, then you could not resolve the question of which one was the first event? because you need a "cause" for that event. Meaning is something that we can find when we have Godly knowledge. www.godhascome.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: August 4th, 2006 06:04 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
1. There is no known emotion that has not been shown by science to be chemical in nature. For example; pain can be controlled with painkillers. This proves that pain is not immaterial. By your own logic, if something physical can effect it, then it can't be immaterial. Therefore pain is material. Also, bliss and peace are also controlled by chemicals. Many anti-depressants have these effects (e.g., Lithium), as do many other drugs such as morphine, heroin, etc.
If you are saying that material things cannot affect immaterial things, and that thoughts are immaterial, why is it that drugs can effect our states of mind?
Another example; thoughts can be controlled by physics. If you stimulate parts of a persons' cereberum with electrodes, you can cause the person to think of specific memories. This is further proof that thoughts are material in nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: avyakt7 |
Date: August 5th, 2006 11:19 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
"pain can be controlled by pain killers" Sure. That is physical pain. It is the soul which feels physical pain through the body. Once the soul is gone, the body is just a puppet of mud. If Sam had a heart attack because his heart ceased to work and died, even though you could put an artificial heart to his body, his body will not come alive again. That which gave him life, is gone. The soul is gone. Another example: The driver and a car. The car is failing, the steering wheel is not working properly, it does not matter how good the driver of the car is, the car will go astray. Same anology is with the body (car) and the soul (driver) If a part of the car is failing, the driver suffers (soul)
This is physical pain. It exists another pain which you are aware of which can be most devastating, that is "psychological pain." The body has no say so in this, neither pain killers or chemicals. If being happy, content, blissful was a matter of just taking a pill, then that could be the cure for so much sorrow in this world. Reality tells me that is not the case.
Tranquility is not the same as Peace. Pleasure is not the same as Bliss. There is no chemical that can give you those, there are no books which can explain those either. Being peaceful and blissful is not temporarily and with "side effects", it is permanent, constant and ...you can prove it by the quality of the personality that you encounter. This is something which science ignores...or cannot explain.
Why is that drugs can affect our state of mind? It doesn't affect it, it blocks it. You are seating in your car, you want to use the power windows, press the button and nothing happens... the mechanic has cut off the electrical connection. The window cannot open. See this? The driver (soul) is in the car, all of the sudden something fall in the windshield, the driver cannot longer see... there is an accident. Drugs are that "something" when that "something" is removed, then you can drive again.
I don't know about the validity of the experiment you quote. However, we know that we cannot weigh our thoughts, that we cannot measure our thoughts, that we cannot count our thoughts...I don't need to quote a scientist for that... it is happenning inside me... and in you. How can I say that thoughts are material? what is the "muscle" that I have to move to control them? It is called will power, concentration... that belongs to the soul, not the body.
www.godhascome.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: August 4th, 2006 06:12 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
2. I can recommend some books on Nietzsche if you want to look into what he meant by "eternal recurrence"
3. I can also recomment books such as "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking, or "In Search of the Edge of Time" by John Gribbon, if you want to understand how time (and any other dimension) can have a beginning and end.
If things repeat, then, this does not have an effect on the big bang; many big bang models include eternal repetition of big bang/big crunch events.
3Q. Quantum Physics: This is to do with the quanta of energy; the realisation that lights came in packets (photos), not in beams, was the beginning of quantum physics. 'Randomness' (if you believe in it) is only part of the field of Quantum Physics.
3T. Because all things occur in time, then, no event repeats twice. Even if a piece of energy eventually gets converted into something that it was before, it will still exst in a different situation, with a different future, because it's place in time will be different.
4. You said, "From new something becomes old and then back to new... from low entropy something becomes higher and then lower again...this is simple thermodynamics". This is not thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is engineering and physics based on solid mathematics and equations; what you are talking about is mysticism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| From: (Anonymous) |
Date: August 6th, 2006 12:04 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
2. Here you have some quotes from the almighty wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return and this one too: http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Adams.htm Now, of course what do you think Nietzche meant by "eternal recurrence?"
3. I don't know how old are those books, but Hawkin's one is pretty old. Here is the one I used to explore the concept of time "The Fabric of the Cosmos, Space, Time and the Texture of Reality" by Bryan Greene, Ph.D Physics Columbia University which has a copy right of 2005. To figure out if time is cyclical or linear you don't have to look into books. It is just plain reasoning. Time cannot be linear because you cannot explain its beginning. Period. Besides there is nothing linear in a universe which is spherical in nature. Funny, I was hoping you could explain why time is linear and you are pointing me to books to read. Explain that to me. WHY TIME IS LINEAR. What was the beginning of time? You may want to know that it was Hawkin himself who said : the question of the beginning of the universe is similar to "who is first the chicken or the egg?" I don't see the answer here, do you? There is no "big bang" at all. Take a look at this link: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html You may want to know that the concept of the big bang was authored by a christian priest/scientist ... if that rings a bell. Unfortunately science has been known for covering issues just to defend the "status quo" of society. There are many examples of scientist ostracized by "science" when in reality they were right all along.. I can give you names: Einstein,Galileo, Roemer ... The big bang is just a religious theory. It is not logical, it is not reasonable. Why? because it cannot explain the principle of cause and effect, the 3 aspects of time (past, present and future) and the "beginning."
3. Please do not give me a definition of what quantum physics is, let us go beyond that... let's think about the consequences of it. QUantum physics is about "probabilities" leading scientist say. However, in a predestined world, where there is not "free will" as you have explained in your posts, probabilities are out of the question... the same with concepts such as "luck", "random", "coincidence" etc. Quantum physics is a science where the element of "chance" is considered scientific. As I said before, there is no need to be a rocket scientist to figure these things. It is just plain logic, plain reasoning. http://godhascome.org/images/Time.htm
3.T Please look at Poincare's recurrence theorem and how Nietzche applied that concept into philosophy.
In the link above you will find the result of 3 years of looking at Time...searching for the truth, this is not about defending my opinions or the things that someone told me or defending whatever book I read.
4. Again, this is not about searching for the concept of thermodynamics in google and writing it here. There are many consequences once we understand the concept of entropy. I invite you to read the "problem of the arrow of time" to become familiar with it and the book which I mentioned before by Dr. Bryan Greene.
As i said before, this is plain logic. Plain rationality. It has nothing to do with how many books I read or how fancy my vocabulary can be. Just demonstrate to me, if you so desire; why time is not cyclical, repetitive and eternal and state why time is linear and if so, what was its beginning.
http://www.godhascome.org/images/Time.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: avyakt7 |
Date: July 23rd, 2007 07:25 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
Souls, Free Will, Predestination and the cycle of time:
Some believe humans are predestined. Others argue we have free-will. Both terms seem to be opposites.
Here are a couple of posts that I found on the web which summarizes the problem in a neat way:
“If god was all knowing he would know your future, hence it would be predetermined and you would not have free will. If you do have free will then god could not be all knowing because if he was you would not have free will.”
And the reply:
“That sounds good, but you are wrong. God has foreknowledge of all our free will decisions. He knew us before we where born. That’s why God knows the future and no one can surprise Him.”
A question like that has two answers: A short and a long answer.
The short one is: An apple seed has the “free will” to become an apple. Becoming an apple is guaranteed. But, the apple seed is predestined to become an apple.
The long answer:
We, humans are souls. Souls are eternal beings. Eternal means that souls cannot be created or destroyed. Souls have existed eternally, for ever. God is a soul. “He” is eternal too. A soul comes with its very own nature. This “nature” is known as “impressions.”
We are 6.5 billion souls in this planet. Each one of us is different. We have different impressions, different nature. We are unique souls.
Souls take bodies. Through a body a soul acts, in other words; impressions have the chance to express themselves in this physical realm. Just like actors in a drama. Actors have a role to play. Souls have impressions to express in this physical world.
A soul takes rebirth and thus has different roles. Those roles change according to time. Souls are eternal thus; time does not exist for a soul. There is only time in the physical realm, that is when souls become body conscious.
A soul has its own roles “recorded” within. A soul has those impressions or characteristics which make a soul unique or individual. Impressions are eternal. The soul emerges the right set of impressions according to time. The role is being played automatically, for instance; as I am typing these words, I am not thinking about every single word… they just flow. As I talk to someone I do not choose the words, word by word: I have a feeling an attitude, which will color my thoughts and through those feelings my words will follow.
Eternity means repetition. In nature, things tend to go back to their original state according to time. Thus, the earth will circle around the sun, endless times, day will follow night or vice versa, endless times, etc. Time is not linear, but rather it is cyclical. In the physical world, we cannot create matter nor destroy it. It goes against the law of conservation of matter/energy to “create.” Thus matter is not infinite, but it is finite. Whatever exists, have always existed, but transformed in time.
Therefore, matter is also eternal. Souls are eternal. Matter will transform as the law of conservation of matter/energy explains, but eventually after “x” number of transformations, it will go back to its original state according to time.
Because time is cyclical and repetitive, then every action which “I” the soul perform will happen again exactly as how it was before. As a matter of fact, I performed the same action a “cycle” ago and will perform the same action again at its due time.
Thus there is predestination. I can only perform what I have performed before. I can only perform according to my emerged impressions, however; my impressions are unique, they feel right because they are my nature according to time; therefore, I feel that I have free will. However, I have not selected my parents, or the language I speak or the situation at the moment of my birth. All of these variables are very important in my later development, but “I” have not been able to freely choose them, however; I feel that “I” make decisions, ignoring the “cause and effect” law.
In order to understand this concept completely, there is a need to understand the powerful concept of time being cyclical.
Time follows the law of entropy, simple thermodynamics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: avyakt7 |
Date: July 24th, 2007 01:25 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
Oh... I see, you like to play teacher. Let it be. Perhaps you could share someday what makes you and expert in physics, as far as I can tell your responses are quite outdated, to tell you the "truth." As a matter of fact, the idea of cyclical time is considered by serious scientists who have a degree in physics. Such as: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/dm2004.pdfand : http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-02c.htmlYou mentioned: "The law of entropy applies to closed systems INSIDE of time; time itself is a dimension and isn't affected by entropy." I wonder if you understand what is meant by "inside" of time. Everything in the physical world falls in time. Even entropy. To say that time is a dimension is like saying that time is an "agent." Haven't added nothing meaningful to the understanding of it. Like I said before, if you would like to discuss with me (and that is up to you) demonstrate to me why time is not cyclical, repetitive and eternal and state why time is linear AND if linear, what was its beginning. Very Simple. Looking forward to listening to that. After all, logic and reason makes more sense than interpreting science to fit our now needs. Best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: July 24th, 2007 02:23 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
(1) Entropy: Entropy is a concept, not a physical object. As such, it is not "inside" of time. Entropy is a description of energy distribution and how it behaves over long time scales. Boltzmann was a chemist talking about the kinetic energy of atoms, and that's the level where the idea of entropy is valid: Concering closed systems of particles inside of time. 'Inside' time means that entropy, taken at regular intervals, measures change-in-time (delta T) of the disperal of energy. Such a concept (like velocity) makes no sense outside of time. (2) Time is a dimension; the advanced mathematics of physics does not differentiate between time and other dimensions because they are physically the same thing: See John Gribbon ('In Search of the Edge of Time'), Albert Einstein (General Relativity), Stephen Hawkings (A Brief History of Time), and the physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg (who wrote on this very topic last year in the Skeptical Inquirer). I've wrote about time (in a very rhetorical sense, alas) at: "The Four Dimensions and the Immutability of God" by Vexen Crabtree (2007) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: avyakt7 |
Date: July 24th, 2007 03:48 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
Entropy is a concept. Yes. But it is also a physical reality that describes how a physical object changes in time. The easier way to describe it, is to say that something goes from "new" to "old" or from low entropy to high entropy. (however, in cyclical view of time; from high entropy the same object transforms back into low entropy and back to high ad infinitum) The concept of time is a very important one in order to understand not only entropy but predestination and free-will and to get a better understanding of relativity. In the Book by Brian Greene, Ph.D Physics "The Fabric of the Cosmos, Space, Time and the Texture of Reality.” he states: “Time is a subtle subject and we are far from understanding it fully.” I have done a little research about this topic which could be seen: http://www.abia29.hemscott.net/riveros_time.htmIn this research you will see names of some scientists like Boltzmann, Poincare, Einstein, Hawkin and of course; Greene himself, with their ideas about this topic. I will take a look at your writing about "The Four Dimenensions..." Best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: vexen |
Date: July 26th, 2007 03:10 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
"Entropy is a concept. Yes. But it is also a physical reality that describes how a physical object changes in time."
OK you are getting better; entropy is a concept, it describes the average movement of many objects. It does not apply to a single object, but only to multitudes of objects that are all free to move around and bump into each other. In such a situation, as in the universe at large, the measured level of entropy gradually increases over time. Sometimes, in some places, the trend can be reversed (such as star formation, etc), but, the overall trend is that entropy increases and less and less energy is available to do general work, and energy differentials gradually decrease.
There isn't scope for entropy, within time, to ever reverse in total. The increase of entropy within a closed system, over time, is unstoppable.
In the big bang, all dimensions (sometimes up to a theorized fourteen of them, including time) expanded; just like they will collapse in the potential extreme conditions of a big crunch. At this point; if a new universe emerges, the dimensions and time will all be created anew.
This is not a "recycling" of entropy, nor a resetting of its value, not a cycling of time... it is the complete destruction of the dimensions (including time), followed by a completely new creation that may have unintelligably different dimensions to the four we now have.
This potential big-crunch and another big-bang is the only way the level of entropy could stop increasing; as all information would be destroyed (the same as with crossing event horizons near black holes - see Gibbon or Hawking).
There is no need to attach additional importance to the average-heat measurements of entropy than the simple fact that it is a specific law of averaging, a trend. The same as the trend that marbles roll downhill. (Some marbles may ocassionally buck the trend, but the trend exists). With marbles rolling downhill, and with entropy, the measurements of the 'downness' of the marbles/available energy, will all cease to exist once the hill and the marbles are all destroyed. Until then, marbles will flow downhill, and there will be increasing entropy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From: avyakt7 |
Date: July 26th, 2007 04:19 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
Re: hold it right there
|
A couple of things. You said:"There isn't scope for entropy, within time, to ever reverse in total. The increase of entropy within a closed system, over time, is unstoppable." That is one of my points to understand once the concept of cyclical time is accepted. Entropy must reverse. Here is a link that supports what I am stating: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2135779.stmScientists still are half way accepting this, saying that it only happens in "small closed systems," however; There is no such a thing as a "closed system" since everything in the universe depends on something else. Is the earth a closed system? No. Is the universe a closed system? No. There are no limits in it. The "closed system" idea is a laboratory type of idea. AND, all so called "small systems" make up the larger systems. Atoms make up larger "systems." It is all within logic .Also, take a look at these links: http://www.powells.com/biblio?PID=27627&cgi=product&isbn=0674011325 and http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/270.htmlIt appears that is just talking about the possibility of "time being bakwards" but, if time could go backwards, so can entropy, since matter, time and entropy are intimately linked. My second point is: You mentioned:"In the big bang, all dimensions (sometimes up to a theorized fourteen of them, including time) expanded; just like they will collapse in the potential extreme conditions of a big crunch. At this point; if a new universe emerges, the dimensions and time will all be created anew." Firstable the "big bang" is impossible to be proven. why? because you need to tell me what was the beginning of it? How the atoms of "helium" or anything got together and what caused that so called, explosion. Here is when the concept of time being linear fails miserably. It is all logic. Here is one of the links which I like the most which explains about the religious idea behind the "big bang." (enjoy!) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bang.html"millions of millions of years" still mean time. but... how everything started? what was the cause of the cause...? when you mention that a "new universe emerges" that statement contradicts the law of conservation of matter/energy (also called the first law of thermodynamics) It clearly states, that MATTER CANNOT BE CREATED NEITHER DESTROYED. IT CAN ONLY BE TRANSFORMED. As you can see entropy is linked with time and it is very important to understand time in order to grasp entropy. Here another basic link: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c4and this one puts the relationship between time and entropy in a neat way: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=985087Obviously, most have not gone into the depths of what they are stating because these people still accept the "big bang as a fact." without realizing that there has to be a "causeless cause" behind this, as demonstrated above, and as scientists are little by little discovering; entropy will reverse....that is why time is a cycle. A predestined cycle. scientists are still learning and lots of ideas are made up to support their own ideas and not the truth, that is why i rely heavily in logic and reason. Best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Previous
