Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
I See

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Murat Bilginer on March 11, 2003 20:23:30 UTC

yeah im sorry for my haste and incomplete manner of writing things, as i have heard before that matter most likely cannot exist under gravity and energies like that of black holes and supernovii. what i meant to imply was that being the universe is a cyclical progressionand/or regression, the same bodies and dimensions will keep emerging each cycle forever via the same processes. now if, the laws of physics are also altered during these "epic" events then i could understand how all possiblities could find a way to exist, even though not at once.
i dont know how to confine the necessary principles of "existence" to scale or form. what i mean is that a universal "black hole" suggests to me a spatial infinity that can somehow be expanded and contracted without any rationale for "ends" thusly "means". this gives space the same percievable properties, like reactionability, scalability and relative temperatur- based states as matter and energy which are themselves relative, yet without some of the necessary principles, i.e. defintion, relative mass, etc. how could "space" have ends and scalability i ask myself. this is why after all my cognitive laity, ive decided that instead of trying to adapt and understand the "unknown" universe with current percievable "known" realities, i.e. definition, scale, movement,( relativity), i decided to try and adapt to my percievable "reality" (which incidentally is always proven an illusory product of certain principles of sensibility) the "undisprovable" tenets of the "allness" of the universe (the ultimate universality of the universe). my first motivation for this reasoning and revelation thereof is of the "seemingly" definable situation of the visible spectrum. not only was i made to realize that there is actually a percievable morphology between two "different" colors, but that even perception of the colors and said morphology were just purposeful interpretations by my purposeful biology. that in actuality the numerical frequencies of the radiation was a constant gradient mathematical function as simple as 1,2,3... that relationships amongst all things are merely the sensible points of reference within an impercievable yet perfectly gradient reality. it is that gradient that seems the "connection" of the "relative" parts. this is why i believe that the lord is referenced in scripture as "we", the idea that all things people percieve are in actuality the product of imcomplete sensitivity and particular appreciation. in truth, the lord is all reality and not perception. this lends itself to the idea that "praying" to the lord, or "reaching to" is merely the attempt to increase ones ability to "fill in the gaps" for the constant perfection of ones own belief system.
in essence worshipping satan, is the attempt to increase "intelligence/abilty" to satisfy existing/percieved reality and needs as the measure of success, whereas worshipping the lord is the attempt to increase "intelligence" to access new reality(superreality) without preexisitng needs. this intelligence for intelliegence sake philosophy as to imply that if pursued responsibly, all new intelligence will invariably expose its own significance regrdless of present reality.

although i lack fundamental capability to rationalize it, i have the unyielding impression that the sensible laws(behavior) of physics are merely the function of that sensible part of the universe to which it is in an unbreakable bond with. as our appreciation/sensibility will grow, thus will the laws in step. controllers "within" the universe as opposed to "of" the universe as all can never be restrictably contained in one of its part. to me this is the only way time and space can be one thing. i sometimes call it "moment" as this doesnt really refer to either spatial or chronological existence in particular and really exposes the idea that it itself is a component of the eternal universe yet it is a "physiical universe" in itself. the ideal of constant perfection in "every direction" forever as the universe and the infinite "physical moments" that are percievable in particular within the whole. so big bangs and big crunches definitely MUST happen, but i cant help the impression that theyre moments in the eternal universe as opposed the eternal universe themselves. just the notion that it happened before and will happen again, disunifies time from space, "many different times and one space" kinda thing. but my brain is so CoNFLabBulATed lately....

though i do understand the necessity of real research scientists, as yourself and others here, to always presume that what is presently known/knowable is actually all that is usable to discover unknown, for you have responsibilities that do not allow for daydreaming, but luckily for me and those like me, i currently dont need anything more of the universe that it already provides, its a playground for my mind as opposed to a workplace. so please forgive me if i raise stupid presumptions as i do realize reckless stupidity is not a luxury which you can afford yourself. in otherwords i do appreciate the road you must stick close to in your research, studies and methods and sorry if i track a lil dust when i cross from one side of it to the other, i love to go offroading if you know what i mean. so thanks for your serious efforts (and of course of all serious researchers) to afford the recreationalists (like me) that hint of order or direction in the mayhem to keep my escapades in the fun zone and short of line to insanity, although blurry at times . but that is the true worth of a scientist, not the data, but the discovery. a builder and artist myself i feel that "building" a thing is nowhere near the joy i feel compared to watching others enjoy using it (responsibly of course), more than even me using it myself. thats the art of science. my hat off to you (if i wore one)

hey im feeling appreciative, what can i say? thanks again and peace

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins