A question about the universe, answer if you dare.... - Page 4

Dramma_boy · #31 10-06-2008, 11:55 AM

your question deosn't based on truth sxb , don't be one of these refugee kids who got their eyes open in westeren countries then believed the MYTH of evolution and how the cosmos started , since we all know gaalo's biggest downfall is their sympathy and false theories .....I say it's best left to foreigners

, just get use of their education in order to get the certificate ,

#32 10-06-2008, 12:01 PM

^- LOL Very well said (and its nice to see that your still aound 3rd world- though the names still vex's me greatly) The logic you used last time to defend the right to use it was to me akin to "hoodrats" trying to reclaim back the term "nigger". LOL- A historical negative word shall always remain negative. Okay.. I'm sorry about that I didn't mean to attack you or come across taciturn its just that before I left I saw your last message on my page and didn't bother reply back as I would be deleting myself and thus irrevocably every other comments I’ve ever made in any page. So I just had to clear the air so to speak. LOL

As for you comment regarding the thread? Very true and very interesting- I agree with you in that sometimes we can ask so many questions that we snip ourselves into distraction forgetting the simple yet poignant law of all. Do your five pillars, increases your cibadaa, treat people well and get a life. LOL- To which I'd answer, I'm trying to.

#33 10-06-2008, 12:08 PM

Drammaboy- though I appreciate your comment and the sentiments behind it I can't help but giggle. Come on dee, if the quran gave me all that I wanted to know there would be no need for education or the improvement of ones mind.

Also evolution is not entirely illogical or silly, micro evolution and thus natural selection have been shown to be particularly plausible but problems arise when we start thinking in terms of macro-evolution. ie the idea that one species can metamorph into another, this is hard to believe as it goes against the basic laws of genetics. Thats why the idea of neo-darwinism has came into effect, its an interesting idea none the less. (Note the word "interesting" and the not " I BELIEVE") lol

3rdworld · #34 10-06-2008, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contraband

^- LOL Very well said (and its nice to see that your still aound 3rd world- though the names still vex's me greatly) The logic you used last time to defend the right to use it was to me akin to "hoodrats" trying to reclaim back the term "nigger". LOL- A historical negative word shall always remain negative. Okay.. I'm sorry about that I didn't mean to attack you or come across taciturn its just that before I left I saw your last message on my page and didn't bother reply back as I would be deleting myself and thus irrevocably every other comments I’ve ever made in any page. So I just had to clear the air so to speak. LOL

As for you comment regarding the thread? Very true and very interesting- I agree with you in that sometimes we can ask so many questions that we snip ourselves into distraction forgetting the simple yet poignant law of all. Do your five pillars, increases your cibadaa, treat people well and get a life. LOL- To which I'd answer, I'm trying to.

waaa caadi sis as u said its all about ibada...n nothing wrong with inquisitiveness i personally beleive its healthy n one of the reasons y i came back 2 ma Deen...the brain has tremedous capabilities n one thought process should be full of thoughtful carriages constantly arriving n perhaps more importantly in some cases LEAVINg lol!
As 4 ma name lol..yeh last time we had a lil thingi about it..but instead of justifyin it this time all am gna say 2u is....one mans meat is another mans poisons!!

...dats should settle our diffrent stances on it1...take care n keep thinking !..peace

#35 10-06-2008, 07:23 PM

LOL! You got some perplexing, disturbing, and utterly counter-intuitive questions which the sum of all we know fail to shed light on, or most of them. When it comes to nothingness before space and time, one ought play with imagination that often pictures something rather than nothing, and thus violating all one needed to capture. Whenever I try to visualize 'nothingness' there comes to mind whole dark space of empty void, similar to the never-ending blankness that one meets while trying to envision what was there before 'birth', which is something and not 'nothing'. But is it rational to try imagining what was there before 'there' itself ? LOL. Actually, I don't know.

The idea of there being someone who lit the blue touch-paper and retired to a safe place sounds nothing more than an opinion of a lazy caveman that decided it was too cold to hunt saber-toothed tigers, which then got updated with the advancement of the human knowledge and may one day be stated as something like that we're in a micro-black hole created by genius scientist in an attempt to understand his universe. Anything beyond what we can know using the principles and empirical processes of discovery or impeccable mathematical equations is nothing more than postulation of philosophical argument reasoning the unknown or spiritual matter in which one recites and follows theological implications acquired through a leap of faith and believes what's been told without empirical evidence. All claiming the unknown. Simple answer would be that we don't know yet. The force required to propel the exploded parts into space is unknown; time began when a photon of light (which is massless) began moving, and what triggered the singularity to explode is unknown. Since all the fundamental forces were contained in the singularity, we don't know what the laws of physics were really like inside the singularity, because the laws of physics as we know it may have been different then. Nothing is known about the universe at Planck's time which is the closest physical laws we know today can get us to the beginning of time, and is when gravity began to separate from the other fundamental forces.

#36 10-06-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contraband

Horizon, interesting question, but perhaps the reason why those questions arise is due to your idea of trying to place limits upon infinity or defining infinity in the terms of a set limit of big or bigger infinity ie elephant and feather idea. The central idea that infinity is infinite should be enough. For example if you keep doubling 2 by infinity or diving the number 2 by infinity it matters not the size of the initial products pumped into the equation but that both substrates are infinitely being doubled or infinitely being halved. Therefore your question of whether or not the elephant or the feathers would be bigger is not fair seen as though both are doing separate things, yet both are forms of infinity which in essence one could presume that no one (either doubling or the diving 2) has a larger infinity but simply that one (form) of infinity is larger than the other. In essence both are infinite but it in different forms.

A fair question to ask however would be if infinity is infinite? Then why do differing forms of infinity exist? LOL

OK. Let us say that there are two angels that can run for-ever at the speed of light, let us put them to race on an infinitely long road somewhere in heaven, and let us call them A and B. If angel A moves one second before angel B, it means angel A will always be a head 2.998 × 10^8 metres. A will be a head of B the same distance at anytime we view the race on our super-sonic screens in eternity. This perpetual race goes on forever and ever thus covering infinite distance. Doesn't that mean A is infinately ahead of B 2.998 × 10^8 metres, therefore demonstrating infinity (A) never reaching infinity (B)? If infinity, as one would argue on the other hand, is mathematically impossible to reach, doesn't it mean that the infinity of the race isn't infinity at all because they will never reach infinity? Or Is it because of us living in eternity that our frame of reference seems to defy what infinity at all is? Whenever we wish to determine a value for it, we gave a limit to it, thus it won't be infinity anymore. Its all bizarre and mind-boggling. LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contraband

About the infinity thing. So what your telling me is that the infinity logo is not the creation of infinity but a representation of it? Sounds logical, but surely if infinity is possible and is easily producible (ie has a beginning but no end) should we not have a symbol to illustrate its creation as well as well as its never ending cycle? And if we cannot find such an image does the idea of infinity therefore transgress beyond the bounds of logic and reality? Which brings me to the conclusion what use are theories and ideas if they cannot be used realistically? (Just throwing out questions, please do not feel as if I'm bombarding you with them and thus demanding an answer to all if any...its merely how I work) LOL

Producing something like never-ending cycle for infinity seems impossible. For one because something that is finite cannot produce something that is infinite, and for another that cycle itself will have to be defined as infinity because of its never-endingness. As for the realistical use of the equations? If you mean as to why for example the equations of finding value for π are not practically used but only abstractly, then I guess that is their form of existence since we failed to give an example of a living physical entity that is infinite.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

SRAZZY · #37 10-06-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horizon

OK. Let us say that there are two angels that can run for-ever at the speed of light, let us put them to race on an infinitely long road somewhere in heaven, and let us call them A and B. If angel A moves one second before angel B, it means angel A will always be a head 2.998 × 10^8 metres. A will be a head of B the same distance at anytime we view the race on our super-sonic screens in eternity. This perpetual race goes on forever and ever thus covering infinite distance. Doesn't that mean A is infinately ahead of B 2.998 × 10^8 metres, therefore demonstrating infinity (A) never reaching infinity (B)? If infinity, as one would argue on the other hand, is mathematically impossible to reach, doesn't it mean that the infinity of the race isn't infinity at all because they will never reach infinity? Or Is it because of us living in eternity that our frame of reference seems to defy what infinity at all is? Whenever we wish to determine a value for it, we gave a limit to it, thus it won't be infinity anymore. It seems all bullshit. LOL.

That seems impossible because something that is finite cannot produce something that is infinite. It might not be that infinity breaks the laws of logic, but it does mean that we have no understanding of what reality is. LOL.

∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞

WHAT THE SHIT?!...