MMATycoon Posted November 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 How water can become something organics that can live and die and think? As far as I am aware, it can't. Water is a medium for life, not life itself. Anyway, did you watch / enjoy the programs I linked? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2012 Report Share Posted November 26, 2012 Time and space in this universe probably began at the time of this particular big bang. That doesn't mean science under the rules of this universe, or perhaps another one, can't explain what was going on in the big bang. I have never understand have if there is nothing can happen some kinda big bang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GripGambler Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 I know what he meant, but it's not true. Science limits itself to natural phenomenon and therefor it can only explain things that are observable. Just like you can't divide by zero you can't test certain hypothesis. You can't ever explain the cause of the big bang. You can't do it now. You can't do it ever. Both time and space came into existence after the Big Bang, so whatever "caused" the big bang did not adhere to our natural laws. Yes, it can only explain something that is observable. Luckily, everything is observable. My entire point was that just because we do not currently have the tools to properly observe and test everything, does not mean that it is impossible to observe and test. There are events that happened in the past and the future that humans will never be able to explain using science, regardless of how far we advance technology. Does this mean that science as a process cannot explain these events? Nope, it just means that we aren't prepared to use it to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 You can't ever explain the cause of the big bang. You can't do it now. You can't do it ever. Both time and space came into existence after the Big Bang, so whatever "caused" the big bang did not adhere to our natural laws. ARE YOU SURE? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 ARE YOU SURE? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ Yes, I'm sure. There could be other universes or... God could've done it. Anyways we'll never found out because it's untestable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Just because you can't, doesn't mean others can't. Zing! Yes, of course I know the difference between impossible and impossible to me, you bumfodder. That still doesn't change that I can't divide by zero and neither can anybody else. You know how I know this? Because science proved it to be impossible. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacky67 Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Yes, it can only explain something that is observable. Luckily, everything is observable. Of course not. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Zing! Yes, of course I know the difference between impossible and impossible to me, you bumfodder. That still doesn't change that I can't divide by zero and neither can anybody else. You know how I know this? Because science proved it to be impossible. Lol, science never proved explaining the big bang to be impossible. Saying it isn't possible to explain is incredibly close minded, if you had watched the entire video he explained how they could test the multiverse-theory. And if the multiverse-theory proves to be true, that would open completely new ways to explain the big bang. I liked Kaku's theory about black and white holes. Just because you and I do not have the mental capacity to explain these things, does not mean no one else has. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 27, 2012 Report Share Posted November 27, 2012 Kaku has all kinds of crazy ideas. Just because he has a theory on how to test a theory doesnt mean it is possible. All his "idea's" have to many if's in them. He is a very interesting guy. BUt everything i see him talk about he is like "IF we do this, thenif we do that, then maybe we can do this. Then once we do that we should be able to do this." He isnt much of a source or proof that the Big bang theory can be tested. He has theories about how we can use black holes as wormholes or time/space travel. BUt of course we have to discover this and harness it. Use this as energy, create this to hold the worm hole open. Then IF we can use this to make that we can use it to travel through it. More than likey his ideas for the most part will never happen and can never happy. As we find out more information into things he is theorizing about we also discover reasons why it cant be done that he didnt know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted November 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just to go off on a tangent, isn't "black hole" the most inaccurate name possible? It's the polar opposite of a hole. A hole by definition is something with virtually nothing in it - just a space. A black hole is the most dense thing in the universe - it has the most stuff in it that it's physically possible to get in one place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 He has theories about how we can use black holes as wormholes or time/space travel. BUt of course we have to discover this and harness it. Use this as energy, create this to hold the worm hole open. Then IF we can use this to make that we can use it to travel through it. More than likey his ideas for the most part will never happen and can never happy. As we find out more information into things he is theorizing about we also discover reasons why it cant be done that he didnt know. What is this co called ''black hole'' ? Why everyone think that you can travel with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Kaku has all kinds of crazy ideas. Just because he has a theory on how to test a theory doesnt mean it is possible. All his "idea's" have to many if's in them. He is a very interesting guy. BUt everything i see him talk about he is like "IF we do this, thenif we do that, then maybe we can do this. Then once we do that we should be able to do this." He isnt much of a source or proof that the Big bang theory can be tested. He has theories about how we can use black holes as wormholes or time/space travel. BUt of course we have to discover this and harness it. Use this as energy, create this to hold the worm hole open. Then IF we can use this to make that we can use it to travel through it. More than likey his ideas for the most part will never happen and can never happy. As we find out more information into things he is theorizing about we also discover reasons why it cant be done that he didnt know. As IF any scientific hypothesis doesn't have any ifs in them. You cannot dismiss scientific ideas because they have too many ifs in them, if they left out those it wouldn't be science any more, it would be religion. How you think of it is a very dogmatic and not at all scientific way of thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warwynd Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just to go off on a tangent, isn't "black hole" the most inaccurate name possible? It's the polar opposite of a hole. A hole by definition is something with virtually nothing in it - just a space. A black hole is the most dense thing in the universe - it has the most stuff in it that it's physically possible to get in one place. Unless it is acting like a drain to a white hole as Kaku suggests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 As IF any scientific hypothesis doesn't have any ifs in them. You cannot dismiss scientific ideas because they have too many ifs in them, if they left out those it wouldn't be science any more, it would be religion. How you think of it is a very dogmatic and not at all scientific way of thinking. You can call it what you want. Kaku is just making shit up as he goes. He has a shit pile of nerds asking him impossible to know questions. So he answered the best he can with the extremely limited information he has and it has no chance in hell of every playing out. But you nerds love to hear bullshit fantasy answers about stuff no one knows and he gives them to you. Thats why he is put on all the shows. He is more Edward Casey than scientist in many cases. He is just making predictions/guess' based on almost nothing. His job by definition is to have a theory about anything and everything. But most of the time he will be wrong. Hate to break it to you but you are just as religious as i am. You just put your faith in man and science and you do so just as blindly as you think i do. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just to go off on a tangent, isn't "black hole" the most inaccurate name possible? It's the polar opposite of a hole. A hole by definition is something with virtually nothing in it - just a space. A black hole is the most dense thing in the universe - it has the most stuff in it that it's physically possible to get in one place. Wrong, it is a inhabited planet that has developed a super magnet so it can cloak its planet from would be attackers. All kidding aside i have a question. OK if something goes into the black hole isnt the image of the object supposed to be trapped in the event horizon forever? If thats the case then over billions of years. Stars and objects images would have accumulated on the event horizon and you would think would appear as a giant circle of light. What am i missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Never mind. I found the answer. The gravitational pull of the black holes effects the wave length of the light making it appear red and then eventually black, redshift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Just to go off on a tangent, isn't "black hole" the most inaccurate name possible? It's the polar opposite of a hole. A hole by definition is something with virtually nothing in it - just a space. A black hole is the most dense thing in the universe - it has the most stuff in it that it's physically possible to get in one place. Almost as inaccurate as "Big Bang" is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 28, 2012 Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 You can call it what you want. Kaku is just making shit up as he goes. He has a shit pile of nerds asking him impossible to know questions. So he answered the best he can with the extremely limited information he has and it has no chance in hell of every playing out. But you nerds love to hear bullshit fantasy answers about stuff no one knows and he gives them to you. Thats why he is put on all the shows. He is more Edward Casey than scientist in many cases. He is just making predictions/guess' based on almost nothing. His job by definition is to have a theory about anything and everything. But most of the time he will be wrong. Hate to break it to you but you are just as religious as i am. You just put your faith in man and science and you do so just as blindly as you think i do. Except the multiverse theory is something that has been presented by several extremely respected theoretical physicists and they are researching this trying to prove/disprove their idea. The difference between your blindly following religion and my blindly following science is that there is no dogma in science, every time some new information is found they have to scrap everything they know. No position is beyond scrutiny and before claims are accepted as facts they have to be reviewed by thousands of people all around the world, not just by being in some mistranslated document. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted November 28, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 28, 2012 Hate to break it to you but you are just as religious as i am. You just put your faith in man and science and you do so just as blindly as you think i do. People used to get put in prison just for looking in a telescope. It was once classed as sacrilege to suggest that granite was a metamorphic rock. I have no problem with religion at all, other than a ridiculous desire to fight against learning things about the world / life / the universe. If someone comes up with an idea and it turns out to be wrong, who cares? Once upon a time everything that turned out to be true was just an idea. Looking at the evidence and making your own mind up is the opposite of doing someting blindly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Except the multiverse theory is something that has been presented by several extremely respected theoretical physicists and they are researching this trying to prove/disprove their idea. The difference between your blindly following religion and my blindly following science is that there is no dogma in science, every time some new information is found they have to scrap everything they know. No position is beyond scrutiny and before claims are accepted as facts they have to be reviewed by thousands of people all around the world, not just by being in some mistranslated document. Not being able to prove something as wrong is not the same as proving it right. That is what "scrutiny" you talk about does 99% of the time. So basically you believe in everything that man with his limited information cant prove wrong. Which leave you open to believing almost anything. Blind faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 People used to get put in prison just for looking in a telescope. It was once classed as sacrilege to suggest that granite was a metamorphic rock. I have no problem with religion at all, other than a ridiculous desire to fight against learning things about the world / life / the universe. If someone comes up with an idea and it turns out to be wrong, who cares? Once upon a time everything that turned out to be true was just an idea. Looking at the evidence and making your own mind up is the opposite of doing someting blindly. Thats the thing though. You are not making up your own mind. You are not even close to being on the level intelectually as those you get your theories from. You dont do the math yourself you dont do the tests your self and you dont understand all of what they do. What you do is accept their stance because they have a group that agrees with them and you follow along because you believe they are credibile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Just because you and I do not have the mental capacity to explain these things, does not mean no one else has. Because you seem to think that repeating a sentence makes it more substantial: Yes, of course I know the difference between impossible and impossible to me, you bumfodder. Lol, science never proved explaining the big bang to be impossible. No, proving is only in mathematics and I never said such a thing, which again proves (oops) how badly you are in comprehensive reading. There are one way mirrors in science. Things you can look at from only one way. Like you can use information from the past to make prediction about the future, but not the other way around. You can't test the conditions before the Big Bang or use information after it to make predictions about it. There was no space, no time and you can't assume of universality of the laws of physics. And no, this is not something that I came up with myself. http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all By a person more intelligent than you and I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yes, it can only explain something that is observable. Luckily, everything is observable. No, of course it isn't. Sadly. Just to go off on a tangent, isn't "black hole" the most inaccurate name possible? It's the polar opposite of a hole. A hole by definition is something with virtually nothing in it - just a space. A black hole is the most dense thing in the universe - it has the most stuff in it that it's physically possible to get in one place. But it's black and there's no getting out. Not being able to prove something as wrong is not the same as proving it right. That is what "scrutiny" you talk about does 99% of the time. So basically you believe in everything that man with his limited information cant prove wrong. Which leave you open to believing almost anything. Blind faith. I agree with that, but that's not what he said. It's not right until proven wrong, it's wrong until proven right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMATycoon Posted November 29, 2012 Author Report Share Posted November 29, 2012 Thats the thing though. You are not making up your own mind. You are not even close to being on the level intelectually as those you get your theories from. You dont do the math yourself you dont do the tests your self and you dont understand all of what they do. What you do is accept their stance because they have a group that agrees with them and you follow along because you believe they are credibile. I can read plenty of evidence for things without understanding every word of every single thing I read. I understand some of it though and understand why X person is someone who I should hold their opinion in higher esteem than others. This is not even close to blindly following - it's following whilst taking the most care possible to not do anything blindly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.