omon

we know too litle about uneverse,despite of all sciantific achivments, about 100 years ago we thought we knew everything there is to know,and there is no room for development,we were wrong, 300 -400 years ago we thought earth was flat and sitting on 3 whales,wrong again,examples like this millions, we still doing the same, who can proove the uneverse expanding? or it's infinite? it,s only a guess, every time we are looking for the anwers we find them in places we never expect them to find,and they are almost allways far from what we expect. we can talk all we want, but imo the answer will be very different from what we think, i'm not even sure we can comprehand what real uneverse is and how it works.imo the way we think influances our answers.should we change the way we see things, things themselves will change.

highsea

omon- Start small.

Try comprehending what a paragraph is.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

Nanovae

I agree, the line of sight of this man is just ... to small
Another ""scientist"" that need public gratitude to prove him he's not a normal but a superior human.
An vacuous mythomaniac, one more.

__________________
"Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, that here, obedient to their laws, we lie"
Simonides of Ceos

Nanovae

correct.
the known universe is just the univers inside our cone of causality.
this doesn't mean, so far, it's the whole univers.
Size of the univers is estimated at 40 Bly of radius (calculation from the initial singularity incorrectly named the big bang - big bang is the name of a theory and not a big explosion -), when observable one is limited to 13.7 Bly

Nanovae

the red shift.


you need mathematics, and they don't say that exactly.


no, they are facts, but you don't know them, so you think it's the same for everyone.

If you knew how a theory work in science, you couldn't say that.
This only prove you talk about a subject you don't know, sorry Omon ...

Philosophie has nothing to do with science except about ethical reasons.
Philosophie is the way you open a search domain, not the way you answer the problems.

omon

i wasn't talking about any theories, i.m talking about common knowlege and common sence which you proved don't have much, and besides you are not the smartest one here, and we are not stupid,btw have you heard phrase NOTHING IS IMPOSIBLE. prove it wrong.

P.S. go see a doctor about that tunnel vision of yours.

Nanovae

I never said that and will never, I have so much to learn on that subject, I'm just a simple man, not even a scientist ...
I just try to tell you science use a specific method, and i didn't saw you using it at this time.
If you believe you could understand physics with only exotic theory, I just tell you : you are wrong.
That's all.
I don't put any judgment on you, I try to help.

omon

thanks for proving my point, i never said you can understand world by exotic theories i said that they exist, lots of things that science can't explain do exist as well.but you simply dening their presence,and you are not alone many sciantists do, that is why we probably never travel in time or achive V>C because or sciantists say IT'S IMPOSIBLE.

Nanovae

they didn't said it.
they proved it.
until a new physic comes ...
That's how it works.

omon

they proved that they can't find an answer.

until a new physic comes...that is the problem, it wont come we have to go and get it,

ok read this

SCIENCE HAS BEEN so successful in explaining natural phenomena that the modern scientist is convinced that it can explain everything. Anything that doesn't fit into this materialistic model is simply ignored. When he discovers that all of the basic constants of physics, such as the speed of light, the charge and mass of the electron, Planck's constant, etc., had to have almost exactly the values that they do have in order for any conceivable form of life to survive in our universe, he proposes the "anthropic principle" and says that there must be many other universes with the same laws, but random values for the basic constants, and one was bound to get the values right. When you ask him how a mechanical process such as natural selection could cause human consciousness to arise out of inanimate matter, he says, "human consciousness -- what's that?" And he talks about human evolution as if he were an outside observer, and never seems to wonder how he got inside one of the animals he is studying. And when you ask how the four fundamental forces of Nature could rearrange the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards and the Internet, he says, well, order can increase in an open system.

The development of life may have only violated one law of science, but that was the one Sir Arthur Eddington called the "supreme" law of Nature, and it has violated that in a most spectacular way. At least that is my opinion, but perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps it only seems extremely improbable, but really isn't, that, under the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and computers. But one would think that at least this would be considered an open question, and those who argue that it really is extremely improbable, and thus contrary to the basic principle underlying the second law, would be given a measure of respect, and taken seriously by their colleagues, but we aren't.


Granville Sewell is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso, and visiting professor at Texas A&M University. He has two new books released last summer, Computational Methods of Linear Algebra, and The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, both published by John Wiley & Sons, 2005.

Nanovae

answer to what ?
To your personnal melancholy ?
What are you talking about ?
I think you are melting mythology, philosophy, religion and science.
That's a real garbage I'm afraid.

that's is what scientist are doing all the day, searching to improve theory
If you believe you could do that on your own, well ... good luck, superman

About your text : sorry, just to boring to finish it
Nothing new, and nothing interesting to my eyes.

Sombra

Things that are impossible:

- moving faster as the speed of light in vacuum
- building a perpetual mobile

Please prove now that these things are possible please.

Common sense and common knowledge are overrated simply because they change over time.

The big step the Greeks did was to give of the basis of a new way to explain the world: Science

Having and thinking about theories and then prove them with experiment and observation if there are facts which can´t be explained by the theory you have to
Fine tune or start again to look for a new theory.

Examples:

- Flat earth theory: Worked quite well for the normal living but there were a lot of facts which made people think quite early that the world was not flat (some old Greeks already postulated the world was round and calculated the circumference of the world . Common sense said world is flat. Some facts said world is not flat and round earth theory works better.

Newton gravity law: Works quite well only there are small deviations in the movements of the planets (therefore people started to look for an unknown mass a 10th planet to explain the difference between actual movement and observation)

Einstein reality theory gave us an better explanation telling us that the Newton law of gravity is working generally well but has to be fine tuned if masses move with high speeds (suddenly you didn’t need a 10th planet to explain the movement so the planets in our solar system).

I don’t expect in a million year from now that the basic laws and theories we have right now will invalidated. Fine tuned perhaps sidestepped but I think our science works much better then your “common sense”

You gave yourself a good example movinf with a train at half the speed of light turning on a torch. How fast moves the light: Still with the speed of c even if your common sense tells you 1,5 c.

Sombra

The answer is 42

omon

ok we don't see eye to eye on this one it's ok even sciantists disagree. can anybody sciantificly explain what human consciousness is?

About your text : sorry, just to boring to finish it
Nothing new, and nothing interesting to my eyes.
you asked a question i gave you an answer and you too borred to read it, makes me think you never cared what the answer was.

highsea

It's a story you tell yourself to justify your actions.
Already answered- the author doesn't understand 2LOT.

Demonstrated by this statement: 1. The influx of stellar energy is exactly why Earth is not a closed system, and why 2LOT doesn't apply.

2. 2LOT doesn't address "probabilities", and just because something is improbable doesn't mean that it's contrary to 2LOT, or that you can discard a very powerful scientific theory like evolution without physical evidence.

There are many ways that Evolution theory can be disproved, but sloppy use of thermodynamics is not one of them.