I use the shallow method all the time with minor embellishments to
entertain or see if someone catches a joke in there, hopefully my four
y/o doesn't think I'm just making it all up, not yet anyway. ;-)
Now you have me wondering, the processes that generated the particles we
know of in simple terms are due to environmental conditions, density
irregularity in the early universe allowed the development of great
gravitational bodies to form and undergo nuclear transformations
producing the variety of metals, gases and minerals we know today. That
is, as opposed to a uniform and symmetrical universe
Some time ago I had memorized a few stages that produced individual ones
and found iron especially fascinating, but I'll leave that for other
explorers to fill in.
What you are saying, separate from the above pondering, seems the
opposite of the universe that I have come to accept (in a scientific
sense, and it may be due to lack of refined knowledge, please bear
with). In that much of the processes of transformation and regulation of
properties operate in an elastic manner. Where vigorous transformations
can occur but have a tendency to harmonize in phases, more of less
gradually moving through punctuated bands in a spectrum of phase states.
Condensation happens to be one of my favorite mental aids in that sense
as it reflects impermanence of configuration that we can easily
manipulate moving up or down the spectrum (in the case of water, on
Earth, today, that is.
Would you mind explaining how the filled space concepts relate to this,
my understanding is not clear. It sounds kinda neat, and challenging.
On 12/2/2012 4:45 AM, Allan H wrote:
Andrew,, your statement is remarkably shallow and not true at all.
Mainly for this simple reason it is well know and of accepted
knowledge in astronomy that the universe is expanding..
Now the simple question is if the space is all ready filled with
matter and energy it can not be expand because it is all ready
filled.. That simple.. for the universe has to contain empty space or
it could not expand.. Some people subscribe to the string theory,,
and what is between the universes or strings?
Maybe just maybe it is filled with knowledge greater that the totality
of the universe and is simply part of the eternal mandala the realm in
which souls exist with out time or space ,, maybe that it the true
reality. could that all be part of a power greater than you are
commonly known as God.
Allan
On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:33 AM, andrew vecsey<[email protected]> wrote:
All matter is made up of atoms. All atoms have internal motion and internal
forces keeping them together. It is these internal forces and motions that
give an energy component to all matter. You can look on matter as condensed
energy just like water droplets are condensed water vapor. I have never
heard of negative space. Stars are filled with energy...shown by the light
and heat they emit and radiate.
On Saturday, December 1, 2012 2:40:25 PM UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote:
Not all matter is energy, is it? What about "inert", negative space,
the pause etc. Aren't stars dead? I really should study the universe
as I don't know very much about space and the cosmos so forgive my
ignorance.
On Nov 30, 10:53 am, Lee Douglas<[email protected]> wrote:
Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is
matter
and matter is energy.
On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote:
The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be
circumnavigated
by the possibility that the original creator was not matter, but
energy.
Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much easier than
building
it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could have evolved in
a
random chance way and finely tuned by selective processes to reach
intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that patterns of
atoms
and molecules evolved to form intelligent life.
Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated
atoms
to desired patterns and forms to code the information required for
life and
to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent beings
able to
wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they came from,
where
they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and purpose could then
be
given to our fleeting moment of existence.
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote:
....... All we have in respect of this is to posit
creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite
regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which creation
myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes
closer.
On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh<[email protected]> wrote:
Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live
--1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but
ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the
universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas<[email protected]>
wrote:
What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We are
already
'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind could be
transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our bodies are
currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new substrate
could
have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's 'hope'.
Such
substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be able to
re-
transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. This
would
be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such
intelligence
might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence would
discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or human
being
might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live free
again.
We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part of our
behaviour now.
On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote:
T9 grrrrrrr
Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light
On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott"<[email protected]>
wrote:
Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my
grammar and
spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :)
2012/11/28 James<[email protected]>
I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, coextensively.
Maybe.
On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote:
Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for
immortality
and the
readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an
off-shoot of
the instinct for survival.
--
--
--
--- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--
--
