Ye Religion Thread

[quadz]

I see these shows on the Science channel talking about planets and the universe. I hear these apparently highly respected experts claiming that at some point even time and space will END. DISAGREE. Time will never end. Space cannot end. Neither one of them physically exist as THINGS.

My (armchair) understanding of modern cosmology is that space is a physical quantity that has some strange properties. As Lawrence Krauss likes to quip, "Science changes the meaning of things. It's called learning."

For example, apparently without violating currently understood physical laws, it's plausible that new universes could spawn within our universe. And from our perspective, such a universe would look like a black hole. But that universe would have its own space, which could undergo inflation, and be expanding just like the space in our known universe is expanding.

Hard to visualize, and indeed alien to our native primate intuition about space as a boundless 3D expanse.

[ex]

"Everything holds a life presence and everything is love..."  Bullshit, son. Life is not eternal, it's presence is not eternal, therefore in the grand scheme of eternity, life means jack shit to everything except the living. One thing I will agree with though... "Time was (is) ageless." I see these shows on the Science channel talking about planets and the universe. I hear these apparently highly respected experts claiming that at some point even time and space will END. DISAGREE. Time will never end. Space cannot end. Neither one of them physically exist as THINGS. I know the concept of "eternity" is pretty daunting, but the fact remains that space goes on forever and ever and ever and ever and it NEVER stops. You could go so far that no matter at all exists in that enormous portion of space, but that really only means that you're gonna keep going that direction and see a WHOLE LOT MORE of that nothingness.

I think you're getting some ideas a little mixed up.  Time is merely a dimension, because of the fact that if you put pressures on it in the form of speed, time speeds up.  Things traveling faster age slower, at least relatively - for the object traveling faster, it ages the same (to its perception if it's a human being).  Because of these facts, time is a dimension within our universe, and like the other dimensions, it has the ability to bend, fold, warp, stretch, conflate, and yes, end.  Time within our universe is not endless.  When this universe ends, time will end with it, because time simply exists as a dimension within our universe.  The same is definitely true for space as well.  Space is a part of this universe, and when the universe experiences Cold Death (a concept hard to argue against because of the general laws of entropy), space will end as well.

Since the universe is continuing to expand and almost assuredly will continue to expand, it's not too hard to interpret this as the idea of the universe being a bubble that is continuing to expand and bloat, and eventually the walls of our universe will become too frail to support the universe inside of it, and it will "pop" just like a bubble.

The rest of your post I'm in full agreement with.  The only meaning us humans derive from the things we perceive are the values that WE place on said things.  Everything is inherently meaningless and pointless and without merit.  And for damn sure life.  I mean look at 2dum.  The fact that someone like him exists proves the pointless nature of all existence.  Seriously.

[fdrjk]

we as beings find love in helping our fellow people

and prozac

[|iR|Focalor]

My (armchair) understanding of modern cosmology is that space is a physical quantity that has some strange properties. As Lawrence Krauss likes to quip, "Science changes the meaning of things. It's called learning."

For example, apparently without violating currently understood physical laws, it's plausible that new universes could spawn within our universe. And from our perspective, such a universe would look like a black hole. But that universe would have its own space, which could undergo inflation, and be expanding just like the space in our known universe is expanding.

Hard to visualize, and indeed alien to our native primate intuition about space as a boundless 3D expanse.

Well there you go. It doesn't take a cosmologist to understand what space is. It exists here on Earth, outside of our atmosphere, and everywhere. It makes geometry, probably one of the more simple and fundamental forms of math, possible at all. A ray, a single point with a line extending from it in one direction infinitely, dictates that space is absolutely infinite. If Lawrence Krauss or anyone else wants to redefine what space (nothingness) is and give it physical quantities with strange properties (somethingness), then they should reconcile it with Euclid before proceeding to call the rest of us a bunch of primitive morons.

The entire basis for claiming that space has strange properties is... what exactly? Black holes? Something which they know hardly jack shit about currently. Using incomplete data to change the definitions of fundamental mathematical truth or other established scientific truths... well that's ridiculous. If I'm not mistaken, part of their reason for claiming that space has strange qualities is the theory that molecules and atoms, finite tiny things, can actually occupy larger expanses than their actual normal size within a black hole.

Not really that strange in my opinion. Same principle: You take a flat thin piece of white rubber, paint a black dot on it, have four people pull the edges of the sheet of rubber eastwards and westwards, and the dot stretches.

time is a dimension within our universe, and like the other dimensions, it has the ability to bend, fold, warp, stretch, conflate, and yes, end.  Time within our universe is not endless.  When this universe ends, time will end with it, because time simply exists as a dimension within our universe.  The same is definitely true for space as well.  Space is a part of this universe, and when the universe experiences Cold Death (a concept hard to argue against because of the general laws of entropy), space will end as well.

I say false. Time as a concept exists EVERYWHERE, whether a human being is nearby to observe it or not. All human life can end, and the concept will remain a concept. There can be no matter, and space as a concept will still remain whether anything is there to observe it or fill it.

I will admit that within the boundaries of a black hole, time and space can have different qualities due to the difference in the scaling of the concepts, but outside of the event horizon, those concepts remain unchanged and unscaled. Outside of the black hole, the black hole itself has finite boundaries and coordinates and age. The only way I see such concepts being subject to change would be if someone hypothesized that the universe we observe itself exists within it's own black hole which is impossible to escape or see out of.

[quadz]

Well there you go. It doesn't take a cosmologist to understand what space is. It exists here on Earth, outside of our atmosphere, and everywhere. It makes geometry, probably one of the more simple and fundamental forms of math, possible at all. A ray, a single point with a line extending from it in one direction infinitely, dictates that space is absolutely infinite. If Lawrence Krauss or anyone else wants to redefine what space (nothingness) is and give it physical quantities with strange properties (somethingness), then they should reconcile it with Euclid before proceeding to call the rest of us a bunch of primitive morons.

We've known space is non-Euclidian for almost a century. Space is curved in the presence of mass, and this is something we've been able to empirically test and observationally verify--even in ways Einstein thought would never be technologically practical, such as via building large space telescopes.

And like the curvature of space, the rate of the passage of time is also a local phenomenon. Our GPS system has to account for this, or significant inaccuracies would build up in a matter of minutes.

Our primate intuitions about 3D geometry and linear time may be comfortingly simple, but they don't describe how our universe works at very large and very small levels.

Physicists don't need to reconcile anything with Euclid. They need to describe and predict and verify how the universe actually works. 

Just because one can imagine a ray extended infinitely outward from a single point, there's nothing forcing the cosmos to function in the way our imagination dictates. The universe doesn't seem to care about our personal preferences. It's weird and curvy and stretchy and straight lines bend all over the place.

[|iR|Focalor]

We've known space is non-Euclidian for almost a century. Space is curved in the presence of mass, and this is something we've been able to empirically test and observationally verify--

"In the presence of mass." What mass? I think you mean to say matter. Or perhaps our definitions of "space" and "objects" are not the same. To me, space is void, the absence of matter (or the area in which matter exists). To me, mass is not a thing. Matter is the thing and it has mass (which I suppose would be some combined measurement of weight and how much matter it possesses). To me, space is void and is not curved, it is not straight, it is no shape at all. It has no mass because it is not matter. It is only the matter that exists in that void which has any shape to give the space a frame of reference. If we draw a Euclidian ray on the ground here on Earth, or even on an immense piece of paper so large that it covers the entire globe, it's not a true ray. The frame of reference for that ray is flawed because the Earth itself is round. But as a concept, a ray will still always be a single point and an infinite line. We can test and observe that the earth is round, just as we can test and observe that the universe may be laid out in a sphere.

I don't read all the high highfaluting science and nerd books that you do, and these people make tons of money and have degrees and more facts stuffed into their heads than I ever will, which effectually makes me an idiot compared to them, but I still completely disagree that space is curved. I say just because what we observe in the universe seems one way, that can't change concepts like geometry which seemingly are only there to make space easier to understand. Maybe it really is just that simple. Because from all you've said so far, the only thing I can glean from it is that space is weird and stretchy and straight lines bend... all of which only happens because of the presence of the matter and the mass of it and the observations our flawed perceptions make about it existing within that space.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that "space" taken in a frame of reference unto itself cannot be curved, cannot be straight, cannot be anything. It literally is nothing. For example, I set a blank piece of computer paper in front of you and I ask you to describe what's on it. Well there's nothing on it. You can't describe it's shape because nothing has no shape. You can describe the shape of the piece of paper, you can describe the microscopic hills and valleys on the surface of the paper, you can describe the smell of the paper factory it came from. But none of that has any bearing at all on the total complete absence of the "something" on the paper I'm asking you describe.

[quadz]

"In the presence of mass." What mass? I think you mean to say matter.

I meant mass as in the 'm' in E=mc²

Or perhaps our definitions of "space" and "objects" are not the same. To me, space is void, the absence of matter (or the area in which matter exists). To me, mass is not a thing. Matter is the thing and it has mass (which I suppose would be some combined measurement of weight and how much matter it possesses).

Since energy and mass are equivalent, if one adds energy to an object one has also increased its mass (and so increased its weight and inertia) -- even though no matter has been added. ^[1]

To me, space is void and is not curved, it is not straight, it is no shape at all. It has no mass because it is not matter. It is only the matter that exists in that void which has any shape to give the space a frame of reference.

Quantum mechanics seems to prohibit that sort of void from existing. The best empty space we can imagine with classical principles--a void containing no particles and no radiation--still turns out to weigh something.

There are innumerable things we can imagine that don't exist in our universe. "Truly" empty space seems to be one such thing. It's easy to imagine, but that doesn't make it real.

If we draw a Euclidian ray on the ground here on Earth, or even on an immense piece of paper so large that it covers the entire globe, it's not a true ray. The frame of reference for that ray is flawed because the Earth itself is round. But as a concept, a ray will still always be a single point and an infinite line. We can test and observe that the earth is round, just as we can test and observe that the universe may be laid out in a sphere.

Just as we can test and observe that relativistic space-time inhabits a non-Euclidian geometry.

I still completely disagree that space is curved. I say just because what we observe in the universe seems one way, that can't change concepts like geometry

Sure, relativistic space-time doesn't change the concept of Euclidian geometry -- it simply doesn't abide by it.

It's akin to Newtonian physics. The discovery of relativity and quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't still use Newton to figure out where cannon balls are going to land.

But Newton--like Euclid--fails to describe how the universe works at very large and very small scales.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that "space" taken in a frame of reference unto itself cannot be curved, cannot be straight, cannot be anything. It literally is nothing.

In our universe, an empty space consisting of no particles and no radiation, is a kind of nothing that not only still weighs something, but which is also unstable and which will produce particles over time.

A key point is if we're trying to describe how our universe works, it just doesn't matter whether our brains are capable of imagining some other kind of 'nothing' that works differently.

Our universe does not appear to allow our imaginary kind of "true" nothing to exist. The closest we can get is a kind of nothing that still obeys quantum mechanics. This is different than our imaginary nothing, but it has the benefit of being real.

I suppose one could say, "I object to how the universe works because I can imagine something simpler that makes me happier." But on the other hand, how our universe actually works seems to be pretty wild and interesting. (Albeit unintuitive.)

[|iR|Focalor]

Ugh. You're just not gonna let me win this one, are you? Okay, try this one then.

If...

...straight lines bend all over the place.

Then...

"Hi, I'm Quadz, and this is a straight line!"



I believe the proper term for this would be... checkmate?

But seriously, you obviously read a whole helluva lot more about this stuff than I do, which ain't hard since the extent of my reading about it comes from the description on the Dish Network channel guide when I'm looking at whats coming on the Sci channel.

Damn these fucking scientists. It's not enough that the government wants to bleed us dry of our money with taxes, life in general wants to take all our hopes and dreams away and leave us with absolutely nothing... and now the physicists want to take our NOTHING away too.

[quadz]

"Hi, I'm Quadz, and this is a straight line!"

Haha, pretty much!

Here's a rendering of one of the high precision tests we've actually conducted:



What would be a straight line between the Cassini space probe and Earth, takes a longer curved path through the space warped by the Sun's mass.

[2d]

After reading focalor's posts, i am truly astonished and dumbfounded how someone can actually use his brain and comprehend advanced scientific principles, and write quite eloquently, yet still be trapped into a confederate longing.

  

roflmao
seriously WTF?

manly man was leading us on all along.

Anyway, let me say this in all honesty: Its not the brain that will give light to the workings of the universe, but your heart. The heart is not just a pump, it is the epicenter of our existence and the gateway to connecting to the universe. Use your heart to connect, use your emotions... if you dont wanna listen to me, listen to this guy:

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HMUKGTkiWik/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HMUKGTkiWik"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/HMUKGTkiWik&amp;hl=en" target="_blank" class="new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/HMUKGTkiWik&amp;hl=en</a>

[fdrjk]

the brain processes and allows all emotions you feel, not your heart.

plus, love doesnt exist. it's just a chemical in your brain that allows you to feel the illusion that humans call love.

your entire life is a complete lie that your brain processes as blah blah bullshit new-age hippie bullshit fuck. thousand upon thousands of beautiful waves of emotions running over my lifeless body every second i feel an infinite ocean of penises and i suck cocks please rape my face

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Cye-1RP5jso/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cye-1RP5jso"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cye-1RP5jso" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Cye-1RP5jso</a>

[|iR|Focalor]

The heart, huh? Not the temporal lobe of the brain? Not even a little bit? Not even just a skosh, maybe?

Because you can have a heart transplant and be just fine, nothing about you will change. But if someone skewers your temporal lobe good enough, or if cancer starts attacking it, or if degenerative brain diseases/conditions like dementia or alzheimers start fucking with it... people tend to change pretty drastically. They'll forget shit, they'll become mean as a snake, they'll shit their pants in public ON PURPOSE, they'll forget peoples names and recent events.

Seems to me (and everyone in the medical profession too) that the heart actually has absolutely NOTHING to do with understanding anything and the brain has absolutely EVERYTHING to do with understanding anything, including the workings of the universe.

You know... a good while back, (well before the American Civil War) people thought it actually WAS the heart muscle itself where thought and personality originated from. Fuckin' idiots, right? And here you wanna belittle me for having a supposedly illogical fondness for my southern and Confederate heritage. Having respect for ones own heritage is one thing. But I don't wanna own slaves or ride a horse like everyone did back then. And yet... you claim to be so enlightened and such a progressive thinker because of your "religious experiences" (which sound more like a peyote trip than anything else), but you still can't bring yourself to accept medical and scientific FACTS which have been established before the Confederacy even existed.

If hearts were brains, you'd be the tin man.

Go seek the Wiz, my friend. And stay the fuck outta the casinos. They'll smell you coming a mile away. (edit: didn't mean that "literally" as in you smell bad, but now that I think about it, I bet you do. So bathe before they rob you.)

[2d]

we are not computers. the heart is the epicenter of existence.

[quadz]

we are not computers. the heart is the epicenter of existence.

[|iR|Focalor]

we are not computers.

What if we are?

It's already well known that the human brain functions on electro-chemical impulses being passed between neurons in the synapse gaps,... just like how computerized electrical components pass different frequency impulses between circuits. The difference being that synapses are more complex than electrical circuits because of their ability to pass different types of impulses in the form of different chemicals and enzymes whereas electrical components run on ONLY electricity and magnetic impulses. So in a sense, a brain can be categorized as a very complex computer made of organic tissue rather than metals. Fader already sarcastically mentioned Prozac, and coincidentally, it's due to how Prozac causes the synapses to perform by inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin that makes the drug effective. It's basically a substance that reprograms/redefines how certain parts of the brain function. And this is basically how all anti-depressants and mood altering drugs function, by modifying the ability of synapses to transmit certain chemicals or modifying the ability of the neurons to accept the impulses.

And coincidentally, this is why I strongly fundamentally disagree with the application of such drugs. They are all designed to in effect retard functions of the brain. The opposite side of the spectrum isn't much better either. Whilst anti-depressants work to inhibit the uptake of chemicals, a process which could potentially have detrimental effects to the brain later in life, stimulant drugs work to increase the brains ability to produce these chemicals and bombard the synapses with them. Drugs like Ritalin, which millions of people thoughtlessly give to their children simply because it makes them be able to focus better temporarily. The after effects of stimulants are already well known. They effectively cause states of depression once the drug leaves the system due to rebound effect. It's also not fully known how these drugs effect neurons in the long term. There is always the possibility that overworking the neurons and synapses could result in early deterioration of the cells during later stages in life.

Not all brains react the same way to the same substances though. While we know enough about the brain to know in a very general sense how certain pharmaceuticals will interact with it, the brain is still the one organ in the body we don't know absolutely everything about.

Part of the reason for that is because of the moral/ethical and legal implications of experimentation on the organ in humans. Perhaps if someone like Josef Mengele hadn't been so engrossed in proving Hitler's retarded theories about heredity and Aryan supremacy, he could've spent his time doing more useful experiments involving the human brain and how it functions. The experiments would've been every bit as brutal and horrible as what he was already doing, but at least maybe his victims would've ended up dying for something more useful when the world finally got ahold of his research findings after the war. Because it's not like anyone else can cut a living persons head open and start messing with the brain without going to prison. They used to do shit like that to people in insane asylums back in the late 1800's, but then again, back then people were allowed to go around selling piss-water as medicine that would supposedly cure rickets. They knew jack shit about medicine and real honest to god science back then, so it's no surprise that through all of that shit, they actually learned very little from it.