Tres Juicy

A charismatic cult leader

If space bending causes gravity, would there not be an overwhelming amount of gravity in the universe? Is space not being "bent" around itself to comprise the edge of the universe? I'm not sure about how the edge of the universe works, is anyone? The only place I can think of that has an overwhelming amount of gravity would be a "black hole" If that was the case, would our entire universe not be comprised of one massive black hole? Why would there have to be "an overwhelming amount of gravity"? How do you account for the existance of light from very distant galaxies? Gravity has the ability to distort light remember? I'm not suggesting that gravity acts any differently than has previously been observed, I'm merely suggesting a different cause. Gravity is is gravity - how does it normally explain this? its much more plausible that gravity causes space to bend around it. Gravity is after all, in theory, the most powerful force we know of in existence. The bending of space is caused by matter, a piece of matter (like the earth for instance) removes/destroys the space where it resides, the surrounding space rushes in to fill the void (and is also destroyed) - so gravitational effects are localised to matter. Gravity is a result of matter.

So... What are you trying to prove? What is the significance of the numbers you've given? I have read the entire thread and I have no clue as to what's going on...

This would explain why we can't find a force carrier partice for gravity (graviton), because gravity itself is a fictitious force caused by the motion of space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force

It's impossible to disprove god, any "proof" offered can be dismaissed as the will of said god as a test of faith. I heard a similar argument when I asked a street preacher to explain dinosaurs...

I've been trying out some stuff recently, no fully lucid experiences yet but I do seem to be remembering a lot more dreams and in more detail. I used to get them quite regularly and gain full control (which is amazing) I'd like to get that ability back if I can

Most of the people we consider to be genious's didn't have all that stuff...

Oh good, I thought I'd gone mental and could not understand simple English...

How would you tell the difference? Which one are we currently in?

That's what I read...

If I wanted to listen to an arsehole, I would have farted...

What?! Is this a joke?

??? Some communication issues here

Not really, there are plenty of good reasons to use the prefix anti... Anyway, rather than thinking gravity causes space to bend, you could say the bending of space causes gravity

Derek w - I never said *solid* object, I said matter. Michel123456 - because the space between them is destroyed. Removing the space brings the objects together This effect is more pronounced closer to the object Similar to pulling the plug in the bath

Sorry I rushed this post a bit.... I should have said "Anti-Vacuum" or something Almost the opposite of the Archimedes principle

Hi all, Just an idea... Thinking about gravity not as a force but as an effect of motion. Here's my tentative veiw: Objects take up the space in which they exist, what if they also "remove" that space? The effect we see as gravity is actually the space around the object pouring into the vacuum created by the object removing/displacing the space (matter destroys space) Of course, space is expanding so the anihilated space is not missed

Ok, lets ignore common coutesy, if you have a differing view it is customary to explain it for the benefit of the other party - they may well agree with you. Not really, it's certainly an over statement but questions are important - as I said, questions drive progress and understanding (you left that part out by the way along with the fact that it wasn't an opinion it was a question). I'm certainly not misrepresenting or straw-manning you. I am merely pointing out that it is neither "silly" or an opinion. As for "not bothering to put forth study..." How could any amount of study on my part enlighten me as to your reasoning? When I asked you to elaborate it was out of genuine interest, an attempt to gather information so as to form an opinion. That's natural in any converstion where there may be differing points of view, particularly if one party is undecided on the matter. I also think that the section I have highlighted red is massively exaggerated. This was intended as sarcasm but nevermind... I certainly didn't say that it does, again I asked if that may be the case due to the complex nature of the brain/consiousness. It is not fair to cry strawman and then put words in my mouth. Play fair. We have, sort of.... I wanted to make the distinction between brain and consiousness here to clarify my point. And still no real reasoning as to why you feel this way. While it is true that I do lack knowledge on the subject, the point of the thread was to learn something. A goal that could not be acheived from your "bare bones" response, which is why I asked for your continued input in the form of your reasoning, not a big ask I feel - if you know more about a subject than I do is there any reason why I can't pick your brain? Especially in an environment such as this where you chose to enter the conversation - it's not like I came to your house and pestered you for information, if that were the case feel free to tell me where to go.... Yes, while I have to agree that your answer was very clear, it tells me nothing (other than I am apparently "silly"), and does not add much to the general thread. Yes you shared your opinion, but in general you back it up with some reasoning, again this could be common courtesy or just to make things clear for the other parties involved. Again, for someone who was very quick to cry strawman you've only quoted part of what I said.... I disagree that it's a simple question to answer. Yes we use our brains to understand our brains (what else would we use?). I would suggest a quick review of the OP - The placement of the word "Fully" is the key here. My feeling are not the issue, I dont have a problem with you or anyone else. My problem is that without any reason for your comments how do I go about gaining anything from the discussion? So, you think that we are capable of FULLY understanding the brain and consiousness? Can you provide your reasoning for this?

No, it doesn't work that way, there are insects with hundreds of eyes, they still cant see extra dimensions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension have a look at the wiki

"That's because copper is conductive, not because it's magnetic." I wasn't trying to say it was, that would be silly "However, I don't think this effect can get rid of copper dust." No I don't either - Just an interesting side note really A strong neodymium magnet dropped through a copper tube falls at about half speed due to electromagnetic braking and something to do with Lenz's law as I recall Edit: Sorry if this is considered thread hijacking - I'll stop now

Another good point. But when you think about it anything we do or create to help us in this task is a product of our brain/consiousness, including scientific/technological aids. Also, external knowledge will have come from someone elses brain/consiousness and will have similar limitations as our own.

"Surgeons operate hands using their hands." Surgeons operate their own hands using their brains - surgeons use their hands to operate on other peoples hands I don't see your point here "no one else can crawl into your brains and check what you think." Fair point - I'm not able to put this as clearly as I would like to I think my question is better phrased: "Can we ever hope to fully understand consiousness using our consiousness to examine it?" Can consiousness understand itself?

Not entirely sure what you (or your website) are trying to say I think the gist is that the planet is only about 1 million years old What makes you say this? I noticed this: "otherwise for millions years the planet would be filled up with skeletons" on your website, it made me laugh. Surely you don't think that it is even possible to fill the planet up with the bones of the dead creatures of the ages? You also say that "DM proves this.... and DM proves that..." How? where?