Secrets of Universe

**SealOtter** · September 18th, 2006, 06:51 PM

There is a begining. There is NOT an end. Everything is made up of beginings but NOTHING is made up of ends.

This means there is no such thing as INFINITY, TIME, MOTION. All of which involve ends.

It is clear to see there is no such thing as point "A to point B." Only the begining of every single point on AB. It is also clear with this example to see how there is NO MOTION on AB, only points.

Everything everywhere begins and ends simultaneously.

This means NOTHING exists. Nothing ever has and nothing ever will. This is a fact and this is what explains the concept of there once being nothing.

Related Discussions:

**John Galt** · September 18th, 2006, 06:59 PM

There is SOMETHING to be said for your argument.

**Zelos** · September 18th, 2006, 11:25 PM

SealOtter, have you ever gone to a psykatrer(spelled?)? you seem to need one alot

September 19th, 2006, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Zelos

SealOtter, have you ever gone to a psykatrer(spelled?)? you seem to need one alot

don't you mean psychologist? And yes, he needs one badly.

**Powerdoc** · September 19th, 2006, 01:45 AM

my life has a beginning, and I fear that it will have an end. Only god (for believers) could fit your theory.
Your theory also imply that everything is written in advance (because at the moment it begin the end is programmed)

You said that motion do not exist : what are you doing when your are walking ?

I think that you experienced, one of this state of mind, when you believe that you have discovered something wonderfull, and then you realise later, that it was utter crap

**Zelos** · September 19th, 2006, 07:10 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

Originally Posted by Zelos

SealOtter, have you ever gone to a psykatrer(spelled?)? you seem to need one alot

don't you mean psychologist? And yes, he needs one badly.

yes, thank you

and I fear that it will have an end.

dont fear. it has an end

I think that you experienced, one of this state of mind, when you believe that you have discovered something wonderfull, and then you realise later, that it was utter crap

you gotta be a compelte morron to acctualy think that crap has any value

i think he smocked both opium and mariuna before he posted that post

**Neutrino** · September 19th, 2006, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Ophiolite

There is SOMETHING to be said for your argument.

I agree!

**SealOtter** · September 19th, 2006, 10:15 AM

my life has a beginning, and I fear that it will have an end. Only god (for believers) could fit your theory.

so you dont believe in god

Your theory also imply that everything is written in advance (because at the moment it begin the end is programmed)

exactly

You said that motion do not exist : what are you doing when your are walking ?

ever see a flip book?

**Powerdoc** · September 19th, 2006, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by SealOtter

my life has a beginning, and I fear that it will have an end. Only god (for believers) could fit your theory.

so you dont believe in god

Your theory also imply that everything is written in advance (because at the moment it begin the end is programmed)

exactly

You said that motion do not exist : what are you doing when your are walking ?

ever see a flip book?

1) I don't believe in god, at least the way you do.

2) So you don't believe in free will ? I believe that I have some influence in my destiny. I also believe that the universe is ruled by both chaos and laws. Remove one or the other, and we will not be here.

3) no, but this is just an image, motion do exist. I experience it daily and so many other people do.

Please don't mix science and religion. Lemaitre (nobel prize of physics) who was a cleric made a clear distinction between the two.

**SealOtter** · September 19th, 2006, 02:28 PM

1) I don't believe in god, at least the way you do.

fair enough.

2) So you don't believe in free will ? I believe that I have some influence in my destiny. I also believe that the universe is ruled by both chaos and laws. Remove one or the other, and we will not be here.

whose to say what you can and cant do? nobody. of course you are free.

3) no, but this is just an image, motion do exist. I experience it daily and so many other people do.

You only experience the instant of whatever event is going on. that instant is the begining and the end at once. You are never in the past and never in the future, and because motion is based on time in past-future measures you dont know if you are moving.

**Powerdoc** · September 19th, 2006, 02:37 PM

1) fair enough
2) If everything is written in advance there is no free will. Quantum physics also teach us that at a certain level there is only probability Chaos do exist. Otherwise there won't be any galaxies, because in the early time everything would look alike.
3) take a video and you will see if you are moving or not. Our memory is our own private video. And there is plenty way to check this

**SealOtter** · September 19th, 2006, 02:51 PM

The video would not work. It will show a stream of pictures because that is how videos work. that is how flip books work.

Your chaos/laws relation is confusing.

**Powerdoc** · September 19th, 2006, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by SealOtter

The video would not work. It will show a stream of pictures because that is how videos work. that is how flip books work.

Your chaos/laws relation is confusing.

If there where not chaos, the universe will be stricly uniform
if there where not laws, there will be nothing ordonned.

The universe is ordonned, but at some point random occur.

For the motion, I am sorry but I don't buy your argument, and no one either here. You could also said that time do not exist. Because if you deny motion, you deny time. That's all.

**SealOtter** · September 19th, 2006, 05:41 PM

If there where not chaos, the universe will be stricly uniform
if there where not laws, there will be nothing ordonned.

this makes no sense. In America laws are broken all the time. Laws are not facts. Chaos is not a fact. laws are created and changed. A fact just is.

For the motion, I am sorry but I don't buy your argument, and no one either here. You could also said that time do not exist. Because if you deny motion, you deny time. That's all.

yep

**Powerdoc** · September 20th, 2006, 12:55 AM

Originally Posted by SealOtter

If there where not chaos, the universe will be stricly uniform
if there where not laws, there will be nothing ordonned.

this makes no sense. In America laws are broken all the time. Laws are not facts. Chaos is not a fact. laws are created and changed. A fact just is.

I speak of the physical laws , not judicial, juridical laws and alike. Otherwise what I say will not make any sense

**Zelos** · September 20th, 2006, 01:23 AM

SealOtter, take a rock throw it up in the air walk around so when it lands it hit your head.
We have the rocks motion then, and your. both happened Case Closed

**SealOtter** · September 20th, 2006, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Zelos

SealOtter, take a rock throw it up in the air walk around so when it lands it hit your head.
We have the rocks motion then, and your. both happened Case Closed

wanna stay out of peoples threads if you are gonna be an ass????

**LeavingQuietly** · September 20th, 2006, 09:55 AM

If I was not before I was then there is no problem
Then you can become from not being.
If I was before I was, then there is no problem.
Then you always were a being.

Turning things around can sometimes save the day.

But this has nothing to do with astronomy, so I'll just leave quietly now.

**Zelos** · September 20th, 2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by SealOtter

Originally Posted by Zelos

SealOtter, take a rock throw it up in the air walk around so when it lands it hit your head.
We have the rocks motion then, and your. both happened Case Closed

wanna stay out of peoples threads if you are gonna be an ass????

No. i just take exemples that is mean against stupidity

**Polarbear** · September 22nd, 2006, 12:52 AM

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Originally Posted by SealOtter

If there where not chaos, the universe will be stricly uniform
if there where not laws, there will be nothing ordonned.

this makes no sense. In America laws are broken all the time. Laws are not facts. Chaos is not a fact. laws are created and changed. A fact just is.

I speak of the physical laws , not judicial, juridical laws and alike. Otherwise what I say will not make any sense

Who is to say that the physical laws cannot be broken other than god himself? To this day a scientific law is no more than a theory that has been tested several times with the same result. Does that mean that quadrillions of light years away that the "scientific laws" are exactly the same...I don't think so.

**Zelos** · September 22nd, 2006, 05:46 AM

the laws cannot change by time only by energy but goes back to the original way once the energy is gone

September 22nd, 2006, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Zelos

the laws cannot change by time only by energy but goes back to the original way once the energy is gone

Assuming the energy didn't cause a perminant distortion.

**Zelos** · September 22nd, 2006, 08:43 AM

energy cant do that. Its not a distortion. Its just alot of energy and then physics is changed but once the energy is gone that point return to normal.

September 22nd, 2006, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Zelos

energy cant do that. Its not a distortion. Its just alot of energy and then physics is changed but once the energy is gone that point return to normal.

Prove it?

**Zelos** · September 23rd, 2006, 12:08 AM

particle accelerators

September 23rd, 2006, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by Zelos

particle accelerators

Prove the atoms aren't slightly changed once brought back down to normal speed, then that'll prove it.

**captaincaveman** · September 23rd, 2006, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by Polarbear

Originally Posted by Powerdoc

Originally Posted by SealOtter

If there where not chaos, the universe will be stricly uniform
if there where not laws, there will be nothing ordonned.

this makes no sense. In America laws are broken all the time. Laws are not facts. Chaos is not a fact. laws are created and changed. A fact just is.

I speak of the physical laws , not judicial, juridical laws and alike. Otherwise what I say will not make any sense

Who is to say that the physical laws cannot be broken other than god himself? To this day a scientific law is no more than a theory that has been tested several times with the same result. Does that mean that quadrillions of light years away that the "scientific laws" are exactly the same...I don't think so.

there is no reason why the same laws dont apply in other parts of the universe how can you make an assumption one way or the other?

**Zelos** · September 23rd, 2006, 08:02 AM

Prove the atoms aren't slightly changed once brought back down to normal speed, then that'll prove it.

they are still particles and react the same way everytime. if the laws were changed they would behave different. Case closed

September 23rd, 2006, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Zelos

Prove the atoms aren't slightly changed once brought back down to normal speed, then that'll prove it.

they are still particles and react the same way everytime. if the laws were changed they would behave different. Case closed

I prove you wrong with two words: Quantum physics.

**Zelos** · September 23rd, 2006, 01:44 PM

I prove you wrong with two words: Quantum physics.

nope. it contain that fact. its of course statistical but the statistic fits the theoretical

September 23rd, 2006, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Zelos

nope. it contain that fact. its of course statistical but the statistic fits the theoretical

I request proof of that claim. Especially since it appears *wrong* in every possible view of reality. No test will go the exact same every time, nor will the results be.
Neither, in fact, will the particles return to their former state perfectly.

**ashish** · October 1st, 2006, 01:59 AM

IS GRAVITATIONAL FORCE = STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE ?

A\Q MY NEW HYPOTHESIS G.F. CAN BE EQUIVALENT S.N.F. I ALSO HAVE A EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF MY CONTRADICTION BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS THAT I AM NOT GETTING GRAVITON PARTICLES, THEY ARE STILL SPECULATIVE.

EXPLANATION-

A\Q STRING THEORY GRAVITON ARE THE CARRIERS OF G.F.

LET THERE TWO OBJECTS OF MASS a & b.A\Q NEWTON'S GRAVITATIONAL LAW BOTH WILL ATTRACT EACH OTHER TOWARDS ITSELF .BUT FOLLOWING STRING THEORY WE CAN SAY THAT THIS POSSIBLE FORCE ARISES DUE TO GRAVITON PARTICLES. NOW SINCE THE DISTANCE VERY HIGH AS COMPARE TO THE SIZE GRAVITON PARTICLE THERE MOST GRAVITON PARTICLE ARE CAPABLE OF GOING AWAY FROM THERE. HENCE THE NUMBER OF GRAVITON PARTICLE REDUCES AND SO THE G.F. . BUT IN THE CASE OF VERY SMALL OBJECTS (e.g. force between p+ and n inside a nucleus) GRAVITON PARTICLE ARE TRAPPED IN BETWEEN THEM THUS THE NUMBER OF GRAVITON PARTICLE REMAINS THE MAXIMUM AND SO THE G.F. IS MAXIMUM AND VARY GREATLY WITH THE INCREASE IN THE DISTANCE OR R^7 WHICH WE CALL S.N.F..

IN MY VIEW BOTH CAN BE PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY ALSO BUT ARE FATE TOTALLY DEPENDS ON THE DISCOVERY OF GRAVITON PARTICLE .IF WE WILL GET IT IT WILL BE COUNTED AS ONE THE MOST CONCEPTUAL DISCOVERY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION. THIS WILL ALSO HELP US TO DEVELOP A THEORY OF EVERYTHING.

**Zelos** · October 1st, 2006, 06:29 AM

No test will go the exact same every time, nor will the results be.

it will be the same, OVER MANY TESTS thats what statistic is about

ashish, your idea fail on the fact strong nuclear force is the opposite of greavity in the sentence of how it behave. it gets stronger as distance increase. gravity does the very opposite and gets weaker with distance.

October 20th, 2006, 04:32 AM

See, Zelos, that's why 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Plus, statistics are inaccurate by that definition. They don't include all data, just "here's what mostly happened".

Here is a humorous conversation:

[10/19/06, 10:27:15 pm] 1: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And 78% of statistics are made up on the spot.
[10/19/06, 10:27:24 pm] 2: I thought that was 75%.
[10/19/06, 10:27:38 pm] 1: What? No. It's 83%. Pay attention.
[10/19/06, 10:28:00 pm] 2: But it was 78%...
[10/19/06, 10:28:13 pm] 1: No. It was 81%.
[10/19/06, 10:28:25 pm] 2: No I'm quite sure you said 83%.

2 being me.

October 20th, 2006, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Jeremyhfht

See, Zelos, that's why 75% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Plus, statistics are inaccurate by that definition. They don't include all data, just "here's what mostly happened".

Here is a humorous conversation:

[10/19/06, 10:27:15 pm] 1: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. And 78% of statistics are made up on the spot.
[10/19/06, 10:27:24 pm] 2: I thought that was 75%.
[10/19/06, 10:27:38 pm] 1: What? No. It's 83%. Pay attention.
[10/19/06, 10:28:00 pm] 2: But it was 78%...
[10/19/06, 10:28:13 pm] 1: No. It was 81%.
[10/19/06, 10:28:25 pm] 2: No I'm quite sure you said 83%.

2 being me.

Ithink you've just upped it to 90%