NavajoEverclear

by way of google, here i found the defintion of heat death http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae181.cfm i'll say again the problem i think this has---- it means this is the first time our universe big banged. Hasn't all matter been around forever? If not- theres a question: why did it just jump into existence? It must have existed forever. Then, if existing in all of forever why did it just expand at that precise moment of the big bang? What willed it to change? There are no questions that can be to directly dispute the end, all of those sound possible, but an end means a beginning, how do you explain it beginning? Wouldn't it go against the laws of physics to say something didn't cause the beginning, but there being something to cause, implies there was already something in motion TO cause it. There can of coarse be a beginning and ending of certain states of matter (i think), but how there is a beginning of everything has no explanation.

A comment I previously posted on another thread : Oh so your idea is like mine, only more indepth. I think this idea is just as credible as the big bang. The universe suddenly expands into everything/ the particle suddenly begins to move thus simulating everything. Whats up with the big bang anyway, what triggered it? obviously this cant be answered, but then why do they claim that the big bang is the most reasonable idea? Its really not. Oh well i dont really care to be honost. Hey why don't you get the idea published? I wonder if it has already . . . . i'm going to go look. To see what i'm replying to, its A New Look at the Big Bang (a thread by Aman). I'm the last one who replied to that in the pseudoscience forum. By the way will someone reply there, i'm the last one to reply to both religion and psuedoscience, having my names there makes me feel like a crackpot. So basically the big bang is on theory, but we put so much faith in it that i think we stop questioning the problems to find a better solution. OK i'm probably wrong, there are probably many people working very hard to expand our knowledge--- but it seems to me kind of hypocritical to put so much FAITH in the big bang. I know there's background radiation, i know i cant ask: where did it come about in the middle of nothingness (nothingness is nothing so theres not a logical way to consider it as any expanse of space, it's really that we are everything), i know that our existense probably isn't the first time it exploded then collapsed ------- actually thinking about that i just gained more faith in the big bang (or at least lost any valid way to dispute it).--------- Um does anyone have anything to say about the argument i just lost the energy to pursue? I thought i had a good point but i don't see it anymore. But i know that some of you might agree with me, but have better defenses. Are we putting too much faith in something that we can never know? (well maybe we can somehow, but that will probably be a long time away) Well i guess i do got one question to the credibility: which possibility is more possible (do we have any idea)----- that the universe collapses, or dissipates? If it collapses, that mean it repeats this forever (right?) but if it dissapates, that means this is the first time it exploded, which would mean it had a beginning, which isn't comprehendable. So in the collapse case, i don't think i have an argument against the big bang, but if it disperses that leaves too many questions to justify the majority of scientists accepting it so firmly.

Wow that is cool. So why did they just barely discover it? Is it extremely rare or did the Indian people hide them from scientists or what? My point is how many other species are there, that aren't really hidden, but just never anyone wondered to go study them. Could i discover a new bug species in my backyard? Last summer i found this tiny gray bug with orange spots (in the flower bed i was weeding fo my mamma) and i caught it because i'd never seen it before, but when i decided to set it free, i saw that there were actually a significant amount of them crawling all around.

well we certainly aren't the literal center of the universe, but it could depend on your perspective. Could it be said when i jump out of a plane that i am moving the earth toward me? OK i guess the doesn't really work, but this is the example i have that makes me wonder : Say you had a ball out in space, (transparent for purposes of the experiment), in the center of this ball is a smaller ball. Its not suspended there by anything, just floats cuz theres no gravity (yeah i know there's not really ZERO gravity, cuz then it wouldn't be matter, but you know what i mean). If you move the transparent ball, wouldn't the center ball remain in its place? But from the perspective of the small ball, it is moving somewhere, when really its its universe (the transparent ball) that is moving around it. Would it be possible with some kind of incomprehensibly advanced technology for one to anchor themselves to a fixed spot in the universe, and will the universe to move around them? Ok, well theres probably an infinate amount of problems with this, and easier ways (though still too advanced for us) to come about 'effortless' transportation, but what do you think about the perspective idea anyway?

fall down --- stay there lol. go to school, do some crap, go home, procrastinate, sleep, press snooze button too many times, get to school late, hate math, brain explodes, brain regenerates, go on psychotic rampage to enslave the teachers who enslave me, get killed by swat team, the end . . . . or not!

OK, well i wasn't entirely serious but sorry for being so gullible. I just have a tendancy to think that stupid people aren't allowed such significant influence. Excuse me, I'm susceptible to overestimate intelligence and integrity.

ok i guess thats a good reason

How come certain theads (such as philosophy and religion) not appear on the active forums list anymore? Few people actually go into that forum, but i'd like to hear what other people got to say (if its put out in active forums more people will reply). Also could i rename my thread on 'scientific probability of god' something like ,' probability of God evolving' and move it to the evolution forum (i think people will pay more attention to it there, and its more on the subject of evolution anyway (advanced evolution)

Oh my that is terrible. Whats wrong with Britts? Does this problem evolve from the one bath a year thing (cuz bathing involves nudity which is sinful) in the dark ages? I will seriously rethink plans of ever traveling there.

good point, they can also sense earthquakes and storms. So thats adequate enough explanation--- what about the ghosts (just by themselves, not involving the dogs), read my first post for the specific questions.

yea for jokes

Why do higher levels of emotion result in flooding tear ducts? Also, aren't tears pretty much unique to humans? Probably an answer i could have found on google, but you know what, i like interaction and conversation better.

Why do dogs bark at things we cant see? I know most of you don't believe in invisible manifestations of deceased living things, so whats the explanation though. Really the reason i started this thread was to just ask about the dog thing (my dog was just barking at one when i took her outside to pee), but while i'm at it i'll ask some ghost questions. Of coarse theres plenty of discovery channel specials on electromagnetism found in haunted houses, and light orbs that only appear on special cameras and such--- what do you think about it? The dogs see something--- animals are the first to detect earthquakes and similar phenomenon (even before seismographs?), maybe its not ghosts or something like that, but it occasionally creeps me out when my dog is barking into air, and appears to be directing the hostility specifically to one place. Most of the time it doesn't bother me, just curious.

well perhaps the one particle has memory of everything it has created, so in a way it would be rather simple to bring him back. I don't know how to control the particle like that though.

immune to aids, holy crap they better be researching ways to give this gene to the rest of us. Do you think it also has resistence to other usually incurable problems, like cancer? Where i live cancer is very high, in a radius around the airforce base and the burnplant (they are next to each other so who knows which, or if a combination is causing it). I would be extremely interested in saving anymore people i know from dying.

in which case amans thread presents a good point. Though 'psychic' abilities may not be supernatural, and would occur in varying degrees, wouldn't those with higher degrees of intuneness be more attractive, therefore more likely to have more offspring. What we call psychic probably has more basis on how one interprets natural senses, and i think this fact should actually make those traits more common. Extremes might devote there lives to the supernatural, or have various other things going on that actually have an adverse effect on reproduction. There would be a higher percent of the population who have more mild degrees of 'psychic'ness, and their abilities being more mild would be not differenent enough to have adverse effects, but unique enough to make them more attractive--- so we should be seeing a rise in these abilites. Maybe we are, and are looking to hard for extreme 'real' psychics, that we don't see the gradual, but significant rise of people more intune with their sense being more common. Like what Neo said: maybe we just don't notice these things in our own lives, but i have noticed-- just small things that are taken for granted. In conclusion (i want to resolve me point admist that freethought paragraph which may contain extensive babbling) i think we may be naturally selecting psychics to become more concentrated in the gene pool. The reason we dont see it is because our assumed defintion that psychic is a HUGE difference, when in fact it is a significant one of great value, but not as noticable or distinct as we expect.

you know what, i totally agree with that. What is often called being psychic and such could be an unconcious incredible in tuneness with our natural senses. Its really more amazing that our minds can put certain things together, than that we conciously have something extra. Of coarse the potential to have such powers of elite resourcefulness of the senses--- would in a degree be genetic, because personality and intelligence have a lot to do with that. I used to believe that everyone had the same potential, but then i thought---- there are handicapped people who obviously and testably have real problems with their brain, which is often genetic, and so varying degrees of intelligence must exist between the extremes. BUT thats not to say that some who appear to have less potential do not have it, there is always hope, they just may need to work harder, and perhaps their 'intelligence' is just focussed in different function than what is commonly valued.

Maybe pyschic people have morals and don't want to manipulate people to love them Also it could be caused by other things, either that or variable by other factors. Perhaps a larger percentage of the population carries the gene for extrasensory perceptions, or even the trait, and perhaps its so fragile that something else prevents its expression.

Thats interesting, i don't know. Navajo has only one word for blue and green also, but they do have a segregation, blue blue is called blue of the sky, green is called blue of algae.

You are right i am assuming that, i told my logic why in my first post. Why wouldn't they be made of smaller particle (beside the planck length thing)? my reason for assumption that they are explains why i think they would be. I just don't understand how one particle would be unbreakable (it would be if it had nothing smaller than it). No matter how small, if its three dimensional it has depth in all directions, so how could it not be made of something?

Roy C Sullivan is his name, he was a park ranger ---- i cant find a bio to proove that he wasn't asking for it, but if i remember right, acording to the record its not like he would attach himself to a lightening rod during a storm. But, i don't know if anyone was ever there when it happened. He killed himself in '83, maybe he had depression or something and lightening was his creative suicide attempts. And he was a park ranger, being forrests have lots of trees, it does bring up the chances.

Maybe psychics dont care about the lotto--- actually thats a good point, i think that some of them would. Speaking of chance, have you heard of the guy who got struck by lightening 7 times in his life, without really doing anything that stupid . . . . i think i saw it on the discovery channel, i'll look it up.

i'm not sure how to exactly say what i think about it, which is basically the same as what other people have said. Even though it gives them chances to survive against certain dangers inescapable to non-psychics, the trait of being psychic doesn't really effect reproduction. This is largely because of the complex lives of humans, so there are so many other factors beside those directly related to maintaining biological function--- that matters of natural selection have more to do with psychology than biology--- you have to at least admit the balance of that is significantly different than other organims. So despite its advantage, psychics dont reproduce any different than regular people so their genes remain rare. SO i propose we hunt down all the psychic people of the world, and breed them like crazy, and from then on require all with the psychic gene to breed only in ways that make the psychic gene more prevelant. Just kidding that sounds very inhumane

I still agree that experience is real---- whatever is actually causing it is literally causing certain pathways and electrical impulses in the brain. Unless you want to dispute that such thing as a brain exists, and if so then theres nothing to argue for either side. But this is only varifiable to oneself (as already said), cuz how do you, whoever reads this know that you aren't the only one that exists? I'm not sure if i agree with you last statement about laws. While i agree with that and believe in it, in that sense you might say i know it, but i dont think i can proove it.

Where in hades did this clifford clown come form? I don't know much about planck lengths (actually nothing) but i think i can somewhat imagine the concept of what you said. BUT are these plancks a theory or a fact?