LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksBanhgggggggggg,
somone is trying to make me a star.,
September 29th, 2008, 12:03 PM
Banhgggggggggg,
somone is trying to make me a star.,
gg
September 29th, 2008, 05:59 PM
Oh he said so, did he? I bet he doesn't know a soul in Hollywood. And in the morning he'll leave you to pay the hotel bill.Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
This was meant to be about the big bang..........
....by a "monkey mind".
Can anyone help me here.
What is the big bang: is it just a "theory"........you know, like stars?
If we all believe in the big bang, and the big bang is "monkey brain", then what are stars?
Are we developing laws of association that we convince ourselves with? Like if we say that stars are a result of the big bang, and begin to believe that like it is a "weekend sure thing", a sure "bet", and the we find out that the big-bang is just a theory, then how do we explain the stars as "just theory"?
If we are "ever" going to do anything with stars, we need real theories about "faster than light" travel: we can't DISMISS faster-than-light travel if we think the stars are real.
"Just theory"?
Save your "justs" for the hypotheses.
Anyone else who thinks the big bang is not a theory?
.
We do not believe in the big bang. I can see the stars.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
it is one of the theories about the origin of the universe.
presence of stars does not negate the possibility of this.
But when you want to believe in the big bang instead of stars. I know where it is taking individuals.
It is like a threat, believe in big bang or there are no stars.
That is almost as silly as time travel.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Anyone else think you're using the word "theory" like the normal folk do? In terms of models, there's nothing more certain than theory in science. It's a pretty common misunderstanding and one that also gets directed at the theory of evolution a lot.
Would you say the normal order is suspicion < idea < hypothesis < theory with law somewhere off to the side?
I think that if people begin to take theories as absolute fact, they can get stuck in a type of quick-sand that prevents them from "outside the square" solutions.
(try not to find my ideas too offensive, please)
For instance, the idea of using linear time for three dimensional space suggests that there must have been a beginning point to time and thus also must be an end point, else if time loops back onto itself technically one would talk about “multiple” time, most basically as “dual time”.
Hence, using a singular theory for time one must present the case of a great “beginning” to all the known forces and laws of mass and energy.
Yet, as a new proposal in using the "time m,oving in a great circle" theory, the big bang, the beginning of time, represents an event “outside” or “inside” the circle of time, most simply put as outside or inside the over all circle of (most simply) dual time. The concept of the big bang would not be a fact, only a "concept" that exists "outside" the circle of time (which it does anyway, because the exact state of the big bang was no space or time).
8)
| « find teacher/student | is the big bang just a "concept"? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
