Philosophy Now Forum

So many questions that are yet to be answered. How extensive is it in space and time. What is the nature of the Big Bang and for that matter, what is the first cause of our universe (if that exists)? Why is gravity relatively a weak force? What is the true nature of light? Is our universe, electrically speaking, neutral, positive or negative? What actually happens at absolute zero?

What do you think?

PhilX

That it exists.

No one knows any of that shit. You might as well get Morgan Freeman to read from a brief history of time, pretending you understood it whilst being soothed by his mellifluous waxings.

I say no one, we do know we are here, sort of, and it's a good base line. I refer the honourable Gentleman to the answer a_uk gave some moments ago.

PS absolute zero requires no energy in the universe, and hence is impossible in terms of the laws of thermodynamics; in quantum terms, in the old fashioned sense: no energy state can occupy only its ground state, without also having some excitation, but I wont bore you with my stupid nut butter shite.

..guess it's ..why does Philosophy Explorer ask utterly stupid questions all the damn fucking time?

HexHammer wrote:..guess it's ..why does Philosophy Explorer ask utterly stupid questions all the damn fucking time?

Why don't you crawl back under your stupid rock unless you have something to contribute to this forum? Let's hear something intelligent pass through your lips the next time.

PhilX

Was watching NOVA tonight about LHC and subatomic physics.

An interviewee made a statement that on the face of it, sounds ridiculous. He said that based on math (model?), one of the biggest mysteries of the universe is why isn't it empty?

I have nothing else to add to his statement.

PhilX

Because antimatter should of cancelled out matter, by annihilating it, but it didn't, leading us to guess that for some reason the weak force or something was more predicated to matter. Another no one knows thing, that makes physicists all tingly inside.

Blaggard wrote:Because antimatter should of cancelled out matter, by annihilating it, but it didn't, leading us to guess that for some reason the weak force or something was more predicated to matter. Another no one knows thing, that makes physicists all tingly inside.

You're right as I recall the show discussing antimatter, but I didn't put two and two together. It just seems that one mystery leads to another.

PhilX

It's what makes scientists get wood.

Indeed.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So many questions that are yet to be answered. How extensive is it in space and time. What is the nature of the Big Bang and for that matter, what is the first cause of our universe (if that exists)? Why is gravity relatively a weak force? What is the true nature of light? Is our universe, electrically speaking, neutral, positive or negative? What actually happens at absolute zero?

What do you think?

PhilX

Religious knowledge and science are not able to explain to the modern civilization the understanding of life. The proposed concept of modern harmonious worldview is summarized in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDidxZu ... freload=10
The offered world view is expounded in the book "The Modern Understanding of Life... Elementary Introduction". There, simply and briefly, without fictions and religious philosophical fantasies, the concept of the new world outlook is being offered with documented proofs of its streamlined and logical system of views. Explanations and determinations of Spirit, Soul, Mind, Body, and the constituents of the human ‘I’, as typically used in sciences, religions and everyday life. Their location is presented on the schematic picture of humans and how they co-operate inter se. Discussed are unusual human abilities in telepathy, vision with closed eyes, hypnosis, foresight (precognition), the ability of magicians and yogins to get out of their physical bodies and move in space. It provides answers for genesis of all known paranormal phenomena, origins of human illnesses, and how an ordinary old woman can bewitch a man, cause illness, and see through walls. It has no fiction. It is based on scientific facts in tune with the theory of physical vacuum and reflects a new world view, changing Darwin's outdated theory. 

Blaggard wrote:Because antimatter should of cancelled out matter, by annihilating it, but it didn't, leading us to guess that for some reason the weak force or something was more predicated to matter. Another no one knows thing, that makes physicists all tingly inside.

Hi Blag,

Based on what I just learned about Val Fitch, it's no longer that much of a mystery to me (and further implies we can't travel back in time).

PhilX

HexHammer wrote:..guess it's ..why does Philosophy Explorer ask utterly stupid questions all the damn fucking time?

So he can put

PhilX

at the end of all of his comments, and look back at their wonderous, minimalist glory.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Because antimatter should of cancelled out matter, by annihilating it, but it didn't, leading us to guess that for some reason the weak force or something was more predicated to matter. Another no one knows thing, that makes physicists all tingly inside.

Hi Blag,

Based on what I just learned about Val Fitch, it's no longer that much of a mystery to me (and further implies we can't travel back in time).

PhilX

I think speculation on time travel although interesting should be treated as hypothesis not science. But each to their own. Experiment will out...

Blaggard wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Because antimatter should of cancelled out matter, by annihilating it, but it didn't, leading us to guess that for some reason the weak force or something was more predicated to matter. Another no one knows thing, that makes physicists all tingly inside.

Hi Blag,

Based on what I just learned about Val Fitch, it's no longer that much of a mystery to me (and further implies we can't travel back in time).

PhilX

I think speculation on time travel although interesting should be treated as hypothesis not science. But each to their own. Experiment will out...

Well, Einsteins relativity is treated like science, and not "hypothesis". And according to his theory, time travel is possible. (Which I may explain later.) Doesn't mean Einstein's relativity is true, but if it was.

Blaggard wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Based on what I just learned about Val Fitch, it's no longer that much of a mystery to me (and further implies we can't travel back in time).
PhilX

I think speculation on time travel although interesting should be treated as hypothesis not science. But each to their own. Experiment will out...

I think it's correct to say that traveling back in time is not possible, but the same can't be said about traveling forward in time. Most people do it at least once a day, they go to sleep and wake up several hours in the future. Perhaps you should try it sometime.