Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If the universe consists of all the matter/energy and space/time that has ever existed, and will ever exist, including throughout an infinite amount of permutations of it, then the only thing "beyond" it is He in whom it exists.Are you sure that conservation of energy applies "beyond" the universe?
Its entirely possible that there are other universes (with their own time, space, and stuff) besides ours.If the universe consists of all the matter/energy and space/time that has ever existed, and will ever exist, including throughout an infinite amount of permutations of it, then the only thing "beyond" it is He in whom it exists.
That would pretty much defeat the purpose of the prefix "uni". If you mean by appealing to Hugh Everett's Many Worlds theory, the math of which was investigated and verified back in the 50's, there allows for the possibility of infinite worlds within the endless permutations of the Universe, then I'd agree that the possibility exists for endless variations of space/time, matter/energy, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Along with a whole countless host of things a temporary consciousness can never aspire to know. Because there is just way more that has existed, does exist, and will ever exist than a finite mind can conceive of, comprehend, or even perceive. No matter how much information any individual consciousness may become aware of, that amount will always be extremely limited compared to the whole, and there will always be an infinite amount which it will never perceive, conceive, comprehend, or come to know in any way.Its entirely possible that there are other universes (with their own time, space, and stuff) besides ours.
Therefore nothing can be said about it .. in spite of the fact you just did (underlined bits).... But anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist. Any additional "verse" people wish to hypothesize about, whether they call it a "multi", "poly", "endo", "morpho", "meta" , or "et cetera verse" will necessarily be part of the one and whole Uni-verse; outside of which there is no finite state of being, nor can there be.
I saidTherefore nothing can be said about it .. in
If you cannot tell the difference, there is no helping you. Because the Being outside is inconceivable, eternal, unchanging, and beyond the comprehension of a finite consciousness. That is why it is said all finite beings that exist, live, breathe, and have their existence, in His image. The tangible, intelligible universe is that image, outside of which is not an option. Yes, there can be things said about that, because your very statement "anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist.
false as it is, can, and was, said about that.Therefore nothing can be said about it .. in
That's ok... If you cannot tell the difference, there is no helping you.
.. and it is you (or someone else) who is saying that.Roidecoeur78 said:Because the Being outside is inconceivable, eternal, unchanging, and beyond the comprehension of a finite consciousness ...
Umm .. who said that?... That is why it is said all finite beings that exist, live, breathe, and have their existence, in His image.
It doesn’t contradict it in the least....
As stated it’s simply your misunderstanding of what happens.
It doesn't go anywhere, energy is a relative concept. So Energy seen in one reference frame need not be the same as energy seen in another.
Example, if I ask you what is your kinetic energy ? It is zero relative to earth. But relative to moon it is non zero. right?
So have you lost or gained energy?
But there you go again, treating this frame as an absolute frame.......
Learn....
How the goalposts have changed considerably over so few posts.Why? You just can’t understand the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. No energy has been lost or gained.....
No, pink unicorns and tooth fairies is your story for non tested physics outside of our fishbowl.... and for imaginary matter.....
You mean where you quoted various values for orbits such as 1000 mph, 67000 mph or 514000 mph blissfully unaware you were quoting velocity not acceleration!!!You failed to pause and think..... every orbit is an acceleration, yet your accelerometer reads as zero.....
Who exactly is piling on the insults here particularly when it is at its most prevalent when you find yourself on the losing end of a discussion?I asked if you wanted me to explain it if you thought yourself capable of comprehension. Apparently you doubt your comprehension skills...
Insulting tone? lol, says the guy that does nothing but insult people. Look into the mirror and see yourself reflected in your own words....
But then that’s why you have attempted no defense of your Fairie Dust, because all you would have is garbage and never observed in any laboratory claims of physics not detectable in our little fishbowl.
Frustrating isn’t it, to only have claims that can’t ever be supported in any laboratory.....
But it’s ok, your insults do nothing as it’s all just an attempt to bait so you can get the thread closed as you can’t defend Fairie Dust....
I understand and forgive you....
Your insult has well and truly backfired as it has been inadvertently directed at the moderators with this impressive conspiracy theory that I can get threads shut down by baiting posters given it is the moderators who have the final decision.But it’s ok, your insults do nothing as it’s all just an attempt to bait so you can get the thread closed as you can’t defend Fairie Dust....
If you do not know yet, perhaps you should look into it. Depending on how aged you are, and if you really wanted to know, shouldn't you have begun researching this by now?Umm .. who said that?
Because whoever it was, was clearly setting up a circular argument (see emboldenments above).
I was unsure of where you were coming from. It now appears you were expressing your beliefs .. which is all fine by me.If you do not know yet, perhaps you should look into it. Depending on how aged you are, and if you really wanted to know, shouldn't you have begun researching this by now?
My smiley was intended to convey friendliness. It saddens me to see that you took it another way.Roidecoeur78 said:... With all this going for you, your contribution to society seems to be perfecting your anonymous contrarianism and posting smiley face emojis.
Umm .. I was following your logic .. it contains a circular argument .. and is it is now clear to me that it was based on your beliefs ... which is all fine by me .. I'm not committed to criticising anyone's beliefs .. (I have my own).Roidecoeur78 said:What excuse will you have for yourself when your body returns to the dirt, and you must step into eternity with nothing to say for yourself except you liked trying to bait people on internet forums?
Oh, do you believe in science too?I'm not committed to criticising anyone's beliefs .. (I have my own).
No.Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that "authority" and "source" were implying those that both governed, and were the purveyors of, the space/time, matter/energy we were speaking of. Did you think those self-proclaimed authoritative sources you found were that? Or do you just have an endorsement deal with them?
OK, I take that to be a verbose justification for making it up.No one has to take the word of anyone else for anything, and I would suggest no one do so unless their trust is well founded. And I'm glad that someone existing these days is familiar with Newtonian principles, and even relativity(whether general and special). I'm sure, after much meditation, you saw what relativity meant in regards to time and the general human conception of it being not entirely comprehensive, and that the current understanding of quantum mechanics has not changed that? Or are you just taking other people's words for something, rather than using the personal capacity and abilities that were given to you, to seek out the truth? If where somebody "got something" was only from some other talking ape, then I would sincerely urge that person to be methodically skeptical. Because walking around with other people's concepts in one's head would be just lazy erudition, monkey hear monkey say, and not personal knowledge. I'm sure what does not make sense to some, is only that which is, as yet, beyond their capacity. But don't feel bad, no one gets to choose who and what they are, at any given time. That's why if you acknowledge and admit your limitations and imperfections, and forgive others theirs, who and what you are won't be held against you.
The etymologically-derived meaning tends to be superseded over time by changing usage and definitions; the Milky Way was once considered to be the universe, but when distant galaxies were discovered, they were called 'island universes'. When the full observable universe was revealed, it became 'the universe' and the 'island universes' were 'demoted' to galaxies. Now it has become apparent that our universe could be one of many causally isolated spacetime volumes, they're called universes and the ensemble is called the multiverse, and if they're the product of some greater bulk, it becomes a 'metaverse'....But anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist. Any additional "verse" people wish to hypothesize about, whether they call it a "multi", "poly", "endo", "morpho", "meta" , or "et cetera verse" will necessarily be part of the one and whole Uni-verse; outside of which there is no finite state of being, nor can there be.
No one need "make it up", if they have a connection to the actual authority and source, from Whom they will know the truth. As for any talking ape that must rely on sense perceptions, they are utterly reliant on belief (whether it be a belief in scientific theory or not); seeing as they must deal entirely in possibility and probability, along with trusting the limited capacity and accuracy of their perceptions even while measuring and recording the data with their instruments (instruments which are also limited in capacity and accuracy).OK, I take that to be a verbose justification for making it up.
The answer is: Only God knows, the rest must deal entirely in possibility and probability; and then believe according to the ability granted to them.but who knows
I also acknowledge that 'real world' is what many of us call 'what we detect by our senses' (incorporating the usual meanings associated with it). However, the process they follow in arriving at those meanings can be retraced (tracked) and is almost always not the scientific process. Whilst the scientific process can be used to do it, the meanings in so doing, are fundamentally different.
As for the fallibility of science, due to the fallibility of machines, due to the fallibility of humans:Reality encompasses things we CAN'T detect with our senses. But we have created tools to convert that information into things we CAN detect with our senses.
That's an uncontroversial statement of what our observations suggest.... here is a blurb from one of your own, for what it's worth (to you), a Mr Brian Cox:
"We say that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but actually all we "know" really was that the universe was very hot and very dense at that time. And we have some theories that the universe was in existence before that, and perhaps some circumstantial evidence. And that means that, actually, the universe could've always been there- eternal."
Found here:
at the 5:37 - 5:56 mark.
To paraphrase a Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, you'll never know"That's an uncontroversial statement of what our observations suggest.
What is your point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?