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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
....and New Problems As Well As Enabling!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Whittier on January 19, 2004 00:52:20 UTC

Hi Mr. Morris:
Welcome! Although I am not the judge, I think,'What a great topic!'
******************
Mr. Morris wrote (excerpted):
"...about
relativity's local time dilation when travelling at great speeds, close to c. My feeling is that this could be an indicator that higher intelligence was almost pre planned (snip) ...I cannot see how time dilation is necessary
in the physics model, unless it is there to
specifically allow living things to travel huge distances in light years without getting much older."
**************
Kantolfir2:
1) Considering relativity along with purpose (teleology) is a kind of science fiction-- and if carefully limited to the science (no characters or setting are needed) discussion in this speculative mode is pertinent to this forum.
a) If the universe is designed by intelligence, I agree with your idea that the speed of light would be considered in terms of its containment of human travel and aspiration.
b) If the universe were merely a medium from which intelligence is emerging, then “c” will be a luminous threshold for future culture.
“Post-c” cultures will have different problems than our own, such as problems of boundaries and how to “pass time.”
c) What if some cultures in the universe are “Post-c” already? Does it necessarily follow that they are more highly intelligent that you or I, either in dealing with complex logistical or emotional/social issues?
**********************************
Michael Morris wrote:
Ok, Im not a scientist, so maybe some of my
facts are slightly off..."

***************
Kantolfir2:
2) Which of your facts do think are slightly off?
In what sense do you consider yourself not to be a scientist?
(While some on this forum implied you must have a PhD to be a scientist, some of the same have used inaccurate facts with self-impunity in that when corrected they sometimes gave in to the temptation to stand upon their credentials rather than discussing those facts.
Anyway, is not a forum a place to fix both fact and theory?

Warm regards,
Kantolfir2

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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