The Universe :O

For all other chat which isn't directly related to lucid dreaming and the world of sleep and dreams.
User avatar
buildit
Posts: 491
Joined: 23 Sep 2014 04:14
Location: USA

Re: The Universe :O

Postby buildit » 07 Feb 2015 01:56

btifuldreamer wrote:I think i'm gonna be an astronomer when i'm older :D Well, i'm interested in space right now at least. I recently looked at the Hubble deep field thing which involves the most important image of all time. This made me remember how my dad told me that when you look into space, you are looking at the past because of how fast light travels. If you were to place a mirror on the moon and look at it, you will see about 2.5 seconds into the past. What i am wandering is if this is true, why don't they make a telescope to look at Earth from far away and see the past? What are your thoughts...


1. to get the mirror far enough away to see that far back you'd need to place that mirror 98,000 miles away per second of time you want to see back into.
2. you would also need to have instantaneous for of travel otherwise more time would pass than you could virtually see back into.
3. the ability to focus light enough or build a mirror big enough to actually "see" anything from that far away does not exist.

I didn't read anyone elses responses so I hope I didn't repeat to many people. :mrgreen:

PS Spectrophotometry is the future of astronomy! :D
Is Lucid Dreaming the brains preparation for the next step of human evolution when we can escape the corporeal bond of our bodies?

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Philosopher8659 » 17 Feb 2015 20:40

So, are you saying that a telescope is different from a telescope because of where it is?

Think carefully about what you just said.

And another thing, you are not looking at the past, but images of the past. This moment is still this moment.

Now you can really get confused about the whole time thing, if you were an Einstein. If I am speaking about a moment in time, am I really speaking about a geographical location? Einstein convinced the world you were, and you might believe it. But put it in ancient terms, like Plato did in Parmenides. Is a sail that covers a group of things the same sail no matter where you are at? Einstein got the wrong answer, but Plato didn't .

The boundary of a thing, is not a thing of which it is a boundary.

If I view a picture of the past thing, or things, can I say I am viewing a picture or the past?

In the game of baseball, the one who hits the ball is not in the outfield ready to catch it.

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Universe :O

Postby deschainXIX » 17 Feb 2015 20:54

You can view the past by observing light (or an image, as you would have it), just as you can view the present by observing light. If an image itself is not reality, than both the past and the present are equally nonexistent--or existent, depending on your perspective.

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot reject relativity and expect to be taken seriously. You have way more talking to do than that, and with better rhetorical English.

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Well said.

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Philosopher8659 » 17 Feb 2015 21:53

Dialectic is based on the principles of language, not rhetoric.


So make up my mind for me. Are we viewing the past, i.e. a blatant tense error, or are we viewing an image cast by the past? As far as Relativity goes, there are only two branches of language, logic and analogic.
In dialectical parlance, a Theory of Forms and a Theory of Relativity.

Euclid was closer to the truth than Einstein could even imagine. Since it is not common knowledge, The Elements of Euclid may be called a Theory of Relativity, and it complies with linguistic fact, since both languages are derived from the definition of one an the same thing, they both must say exactly the same thing. There is no magic language for the intelligent. There is one single standard for all.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3654
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Summerlander » 18 Feb 2015 19:48

Philosopher, I feel like you are an intelligent individual who was curious about philosophy and mathematics, did some research, gleaned some useful insights, and then got lost trying to become his own legend. A bit like the once great Gore Vidal, who said what others wouldn't, until Christopher Hitchens (deschainXIX) came along to say, "You've lost the plot old man, and no, I am not your delfino..."

Get a grip, Philosopher, get a grip :mrgreen:

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Philosopher8659 » 18 Feb 2015 20:44

Well, I probably don't do as much feeling as you do. So, when you can take a break from it, perhaps you address the arguments. Fault them, if you can.

Here, you can take an in depth view of my gleanings.

https://archive.org/search.php?query=johnclark8659&sort=-publicdate

But please, I really don't care what you are doing with your hands, address the arguments.

User avatar
Summerlander
Posts: 3654
Joined: 22 Sep 2011 19:52

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Summerlander » 18 Feb 2015 21:52

I find myself unable to take you at face value when you purvey your non sequitur arguments with oxymorons such as the "the picture of the past" above. You just said it was a picture (of the past). And then you ask if it's a picture or the past that you are viewing? Everybody knows it's not the "original" past but its depiction. If you want to get poetic you can say, of course, that you are looking at the past - as opposed to its literal contemplation when you look at the stars. (This also reminds me of your opposition to, or ignorance of, Einstein's relativity!)

Anyway, language allows you to elaborate, provide details, be specific. You can say you're focusing on the colours and not concerned with what the picture represents, or, you can effuse that you were well aware of past events, like you were there, and that during your observation you momentarily forgot that you were staring at a picture.

So, after your babble, I still say to you: And your point is? There you go, you asked me to fault something.

[ Post made via Android ] Image
"Empty cognizance of one taste, suffused with knowing, is your unmistaken nature, the uncontrived original state. when not altering what is, allow it to be as it is, and the awakened state is right now spontaneously present."

- Padmasambhava

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Philosopher8659 » 18 Feb 2015 22:25

One thing for sure, you are practiced at the art of BS.

User avatar
deschainXIX
Posts: 922
Joined: 07 Aug 2013 18:18
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Universe :O

Postby deschainXIX » 18 Feb 2015 22:57

I have the same problems with your tautologies as Summerlander. The trend of gross ignorance of Darwinian evolution (and now Einsteinian relativity) is at the forefront. It proves yet again my thought that those who reject evolution rarely understand it. The notions that argumentative pieces must be definitive (a wholly noble and astute observation that I admire) and that analogue is the most precise mode of argument are paradoxical to my mind. Also, for someone so allegedly studious of philology and the concept of language, you don't seem to have much of a grip on the English one (and presumably your essays are in English)--but I suppose I'll look at your work eventually.

(Of particular interest is the "Learning About God" one. I desperately hope that all of this isn't merely a hysteric attempt at vindicating a set of archaic, barbarian texts written by desert-dwelling man in and around the 3rd century BC. Much of your writing appears to bear the signs of lifelong obsession.)

[ Post made via iPhone ] Image
Well said.

Philosopher8659
Posts: 128
Joined: 14 Feb 2015 07:14
Location: Michigan

Re: The Universe :O

Postby Philosopher8659 » 20 Feb 2015 00:10

You also have the trouble understanding simple logic and the English Language.
Darwin postulated random mutation. The current view of most, is punctuated equilibrium. And hell, that goes back as far as Gould. The first law of mathematics, or of physics, or any language at all, is A equals A, or again, For every action there is an opposite and equal, reaction. Every environmental acquisition system of a living organism, each and every one, must acquire from something in the environment, an element, either material or form, and with that element produce something that maintains and promotes its life. Now, since this is a fact, you tell me where is the randomness in that? The human mind has exactly the same purpose. From the first laws of physics, to the principles of biology, they both state right at their foundation, there is an imposed order. When one adds 1 to 1, it is not chance that the product is 2.

Secondly, any moron can tell you that you have contradicted yourself when you state that the goal is life, but that the method is random. If the goal is life, then it is certainly not random. Most of those who claim that the process is random, also claim that life has no purpose, which is a linguistic fallacy, as I pointed out, as Plato pointed out, as the principles of language point out, you cannot predicate of an element. You simply show how illiterate you are. The same as Einstein.


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest