TheHeretic
Registered Senior Member
Is it possible that the universe is was not created by one big bang but by many big bangs which make up all the galaxies. That may explain all the black holes in the center of galaxies.
The Big Bang or The big bangs
- Thread starter TheHeretic
- Start date
- Status
TheHeretic
Registered Senior Member
yes i'm familiar with the big bang theory. And it wasn't an explosion but an expansion. But now that i think about it if it were true all the galaxies would be expanding into each other.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
.... em, no. They'd just be doing actually what they are doing already.
Y'know, it's actually less shit reading the book than having to make up your own from scratch....
Y'know, it's actually less shit reading the book than having to make up your own from scratch....
James R, you can't be serious when saying that the Big Bang is an explosion of space and time. No rational person can say that TIME exists physically, by itself. It's merely a sensation of the observers mind. And this is the same for matter also, it's also just a sensation, nothing more. No one can prove the existence of an external material world. The fact that we are conscious of the universe means that the universe is in our consciousness. If it wasn't, we couldn't be conscious of it.
The "Big Bang" theory says that mind evolves from matter, while Quantum Mechanics says that matter is a consequence of mind. If Quantum Mechanics were true for the atom, it should be true for the universe as a whole as well: the "outer universe", too, should be generated by the observer's mind. And this should be taught in universities.
Why do the scientists say that there was heat in the beginning? For there to be heat, there has to be atoms to generate the heat. But scientists can't explain where the first atoms came from or how or why they are the way they are. They don't know that satellites spin around the nucleus because of magnetic attraction and repulsion, instead they think the universe needs a push... an explosion which creates atoms and living things able to reason and talk.
And if there are several big bangs, we can imagine whatever we want. A big bang for each star, or a big bang at every moment. In fact, physicists are obliged to admit, sooner or later, that the origin takes place everywhere at the same time, and at each moment of time, without expansion, and to forget Doppler effect and " background light ".
I do not mean that physicists are stupid. I only think they are afraid of truth. Scientists generally know that the "big bang" theory is impossible. The problem is that they have nothing with which to replace it, it is consistent with the usual mistakes of Physics (but in absolute contradiction to Quantum Physics). So they carry on teaching it.
...
Why would the expansion of the universe start increasing after the Big Bang? Where would the increase of speed come from? From what source of energy? After an explosion, motions never speed up. Also, the expansion doesn't have to mean that all the energy was concentrated some billions of years ago. It's impossible to be sure that the whole universe is expanding, instead of just the part of it in which our galaxy takes place.
And there is another reason why that theory is useless: In fact, an explosion is necessary only if you believe that atoms and planets consume energy in order to move at their incredible speeds. But they don't. Their motive energy is created all the time by their magnetic relations between one another.
The Big Bang theory doesn't explain where matter comes from, so it doesn't explain the universe at all.
The "Big Bang" theory says that mind evolves from matter, while Quantum Mechanics says that matter is a consequence of mind. If Quantum Mechanics were true for the atom, it should be true for the universe as a whole as well: the "outer universe", too, should be generated by the observer's mind. And this should be taught in universities.
Why do the scientists say that there was heat in the beginning? For there to be heat, there has to be atoms to generate the heat. But scientists can't explain where the first atoms came from or how or why they are the way they are. They don't know that satellites spin around the nucleus because of magnetic attraction and repulsion, instead they think the universe needs a push... an explosion which creates atoms and living things able to reason and talk.
And if there are several big bangs, we can imagine whatever we want. A big bang for each star, or a big bang at every moment. In fact, physicists are obliged to admit, sooner or later, that the origin takes place everywhere at the same time, and at each moment of time, without expansion, and to forget Doppler effect and " background light ".
I do not mean that physicists are stupid. I only think they are afraid of truth. Scientists generally know that the "big bang" theory is impossible. The problem is that they have nothing with which to replace it, it is consistent with the usual mistakes of Physics (but in absolute contradiction to Quantum Physics). So they carry on teaching it.
...
Why would the expansion of the universe start increasing after the Big Bang? Where would the increase of speed come from? From what source of energy? After an explosion, motions never speed up. Also, the expansion doesn't have to mean that all the energy was concentrated some billions of years ago. It's impossible to be sure that the whole universe is expanding, instead of just the part of it in which our galaxy takes place.
And there is another reason why that theory is useless: In fact, an explosion is necessary only if you believe that atoms and planets consume energy in order to move at their incredible speeds. But they don't. Their motive energy is created all the time by their magnetic relations between one another.
The Big Bang theory doesn't explain where matter comes from, so it doesn't explain the universe at all.
Yorda,
You've made a lot of claims in your post. The question is: do you have any evidence for the things you've said? Is there any way we can test your claims against those other "less imaginative" theories physicists have?
This is more a philosophical stance than a question of physics. For a physicist, time is just another coordinate used to label events. What does it mean to say that "time exists physically"? Depending on your answer, you'll either say that time exists physically, or it doesn't. Also, matter might be all in our minds, so that if I'm not aware of the tree behind me it stops existing, but that has no physical (i.e. scientific) consequences, since such features of the universe are unobservable and untestable.
That sounds very New Age to me. Quantum mechanics deals with real objects, not creations of the mind. Or, at least, the objects in the quantum world are as real as any other objects.
Is there any way to test whether our minds generate the universe, as opposed to our minds perceiving a universe which is really out there and independent? If not, then the distinction is scientifically unimportant, though it may be interesting to contemplate philosophically.
"Heat" is a very well defined concept in physics. Heat is a form of energy, and there is no doubt that there was abundant energy available at the big bang.
On the contrary, the laws of nuclear physics and baryogenesis are understood quite well.
The concept of several big bangs in the same universe actually doesn't make any sense, and people who suggest the idea usually do so because they have a flawed conception of what the big bang was.
A few problems here. First, the expansion of the universe, the Doppler effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation are all observed, like them or not, and they require an explanation. The best explanation we have right now is the big bang model. Maybe we can do better than that, but nobody has so far.
I'm not sure whether you are putting forward a "continuous generation" idea here, in which matter is being continually created all the time (even today). But if so, that kind of idea was the basis of the Steady State model of the universe, which has been shown by evidence to be flawed.
If you polled scientists, I doubt very much that you'd find that they believe the big bang is impossible. On the contrary, it is the most plausible explanation for how our universe began.
The big bang theory is not in opposition to quantum physics. In fact, it uses many of the ideas from quantum physics.
Don't you think that if the big bang was fundamentally incompatible with quantum physics, physicists wouldn't have thrown out the theory by now? Do you think they'd fail to notice the problem?
The best current explanation involves "dark energy", which creates a kind of anti-gravity effect, and causes the expansion to accelerate over time.
The big bang was no ordinary explosion, and you should be wary of assuming that everything which applies to an ordinary explosion also applies to the big bang.
That's wrong. We can see literally millions of galaxies apart from our own, and they are all participating the universal expansion.
I don't know why you think this is a problem. Newton's first law did away with the concept of energy being needed for motion back in the seventeenth century.
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid.
You've made a lot of claims in your post. The question is: do you have any evidence for the things you've said? Is there any way we can test your claims against those other "less imaginative" theories physicists have?
This is more a philosophical stance than a question of physics. For a physicist, time is just another coordinate used to label events. What does it mean to say that "time exists physically"? Depending on your answer, you'll either say that time exists physically, or it doesn't. Also, matter might be all in our minds, so that if I'm not aware of the tree behind me it stops existing, but that has no physical (i.e. scientific) consequences, since such features of the universe are unobservable and untestable.
That sounds very New Age to me. Quantum mechanics deals with real objects, not creations of the mind. Or, at least, the objects in the quantum world are as real as any other objects.
Is there any way to test whether our minds generate the universe, as opposed to our minds perceiving a universe which is really out there and independent? If not, then the distinction is scientifically unimportant, though it may be interesting to contemplate philosophically.
"Heat" is a very well defined concept in physics. Heat is a form of energy, and there is no doubt that there was abundant energy available at the big bang.
On the contrary, the laws of nuclear physics and baryogenesis are understood quite well.
The concept of several big bangs in the same universe actually doesn't make any sense, and people who suggest the idea usually do so because they have a flawed conception of what the big bang was.
A few problems here. First, the expansion of the universe, the Doppler effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation are all observed, like them or not, and they require an explanation. The best explanation we have right now is the big bang model. Maybe we can do better than that, but nobody has so far.
I'm not sure whether you are putting forward a "continuous generation" idea here, in which matter is being continually created all the time (even today). But if so, that kind of idea was the basis of the Steady State model of the universe, which has been shown by evidence to be flawed.
If you polled scientists, I doubt very much that you'd find that they believe the big bang is impossible. On the contrary, it is the most plausible explanation for how our universe began.
The big bang theory is not in opposition to quantum physics. In fact, it uses many of the ideas from quantum physics.
Don't you think that if the big bang was fundamentally incompatible with quantum physics, physicists wouldn't have thrown out the theory by now? Do you think they'd fail to notice the problem?
The best current explanation involves "dark energy", which creates a kind of anti-gravity effect, and causes the expansion to accelerate over time.
The big bang was no ordinary explosion, and you should be wary of assuming that everything which applies to an ordinary explosion also applies to the big bang.
That's wrong. We can see literally millions of galaxies apart from our own, and they are all participating the universal expansion.
I don't know why you think this is a problem. Newton's first law did away with the concept of energy being needed for motion back in the seventeenth century.
Wrong on both counts, I'm afraid.
James R said:
It's not possible to find the causes by observing effects. What is visible is the result of a cause. What is visible is always illusory, an illusion produced by a cause but unable to create anything. The cause cannot be visible. The present cannot be visible. It is the creator of appearances. Physics cannot apprehend what is not physical, so Physics will always remain ignorant of the causes of the universe.
For a cause to become visible, it must become past, hence the goal must already have been attained. Then, with no longer any goal, no apparent effect can be observed. HENCE THE CAUSE IS ALWAYS INVISIBLE, and apparent reality is always illusory. This is why when Physics tries to seize the atoms' reality, it discovers... nothingness.
Metaphysics is the science of causes. Not the science of effects like Physics. Its epistemology cannot be based upon experiments. It can only be based upon the absence of any hypothesis. Hypotheses are admissible in Physics, since you can verify, but not in the Metaphysical field. Our science refuses any hypothesis and demonstrates that this is the only way to understand the universe, mind, matter and life.
Physicists consider the universe as a scientific object, despite the fact that these experiments take place "within" the laws of the very universe they try to explain; i.e. within mind. The act of observing, the act of feeling, of perceiving time and space, is questioned by no one. No physical experiment can disprove these fundamental precepts of knowledge, because all of them, irrespectively, serve irrefutably to confirm the perception of the universe, and implicitly, their relationship to it.
Existence is no longer a scientific fact. The universe IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC OBJECT, because all experiments are contained within it, are part and parcel of it, and thereby confirm it. Experiments are incapable of disproving it. So, Science forbids itself to talk about the universe. MATTER ITSELF, and energy, are not scientific objects because all experience and all experiments depend upon them and utilise them, thereby rendering impossible the refutation of their reality. So Physics has nothing to say about matter. Another science is necessary.
So, Physics' epistemology is based on a profound contradiction: the bases upon which Physics is founded are UNSCIENTIFIC.
Our goal is to make them more scientific.
What logical reason is there to think that the "universe" is somehow, "outside" "ourselves"? We are a part of the universe, we are the same thing as the universe. People can't realize this because of consciousness. Consciousness is like the magnetic repulsion, it refuses to accept what it is, it refuses to forget the personal universe to unite with impersonal, unconscious mind... defending our persons means that we refuse our infinity. Personal consciousness creates the illusion of separation from ourselves and the universe.
What is heat made of? 'Heat particles'? Is there proof that there heat can exist on its own, without atoms? What is "energy" according to todays physics? Can physicists explain it?
One of the major errors of Physics comes from the ignorance of what a cause is. Since they believe that the cause is the origin IN time, they search for an explanation of the existence of the universe in its past. This is impossible. If the effect is present, the cause is present. Time and the universe are the same thing, hence you cannot explain the universe within time. Time cannot start somewhere in time, neither can the universe.
If there had been a concentration of everything somewhere, like the Big Bang theory supposes, motion would have been impossible, there would have been no friction at all, and it would have been absolutely cold. As long as physicists fail to demonstrate that heat exists without atoms, I cannot believe in any original explosion due to initial heat. We know that heat comes from compressed atoms. So, for there to be heat, atoms must already exist. However, the Big Bang theory does not explain where the atoms and the matter come from.
No.... for example, when Einstein invented "photons", particles of light (although nobody ever saw light between a source and a receptor: light is in the "receptor"'s sensation, not outside), the invention of particles went on without ever asking whether the bases were right or not.
In fact, it quickly becomes impossible to say the opposite. When so many Nobel Prizes are awarded each time a mistake is hidden by a new mathematical artefact, it becomes impossible to say: "everything was wrong; we must start again from the beginning". Impossible. All the more since science manages to create technical achievements, using Quantum Mechanics (laser, supra conductors, etc.). Scientists do not imagine that their interpretation of natural facts does not prevent laws to be what they are, and that with the right interpretation, they surely would achieve much more.
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Clearly you are very passionate about metaphysics and the theories that come from it.
Although I don't have time for a lengthy response, I do have a couple of comments.
Firstly, you say the since we only observe effects we cannot understand causes. Does this not apply to metaphysics as well? Since you yourself are an effect how can you have anymore grasp on causes then say a physicist. What make your point of view more valid?
Is it not possible to infer what a cause was but study the nature of its effect, or does metaphysics not allow that. For example, if a piece of glass breaks, we can assume that something had to hit it. That something must have been at least x kg and travelling at y speed....etc...
I would not come into the physics forum and say something like "heat particles". It takes away from your knowledge on the subject and the validity of your statements.
"If the effect is present, the cause is present." huh? :bugeye: I study both philosophy and physics, this makes no sense to either subjects.
"If there had been a concentration of everything somewhere, like the Big Bang theory supposes, motion would have been impossible, there would have been no friction at all, and it would have been absolutely cold. As long as physicists fail to demonstrate that heat exists without atoms, I cannot believe in any original explosion due to initial heat. We know that heat comes from compressed atoms. So, for there to be heat, atoms must already exist. However, the Big Bang theory does not explain where the atoms and the matter come from."
Your confusing the terms heat and energy...and embarrassing yourself. I would suggest actually reading up on the various big bang theories.
Thats all for now....*patiently waits for James R's response"
Although I don't have time for a lengthy response, I do have a couple of comments.
Firstly, you say the since we only observe effects we cannot understand causes. Does this not apply to metaphysics as well? Since you yourself are an effect how can you have anymore grasp on causes then say a physicist. What make your point of view more valid?
Is it not possible to infer what a cause was but study the nature of its effect, or does metaphysics not allow that. For example, if a piece of glass breaks, we can assume that something had to hit it. That something must have been at least x kg and travelling at y speed....etc...
I would not come into the physics forum and say something like "heat particles". It takes away from your knowledge on the subject and the validity of your statements.
"If the effect is present, the cause is present." huh? :bugeye: I study both philosophy and physics, this makes no sense to either subjects.
"If there had been a concentration of everything somewhere, like the Big Bang theory supposes, motion would have been impossible, there would have been no friction at all, and it would have been absolutely cold. As long as physicists fail to demonstrate that heat exists without atoms, I cannot believe in any original explosion due to initial heat. We know that heat comes from compressed atoms. So, for there to be heat, atoms must already exist. However, the Big Bang theory does not explain where the atoms and the matter come from."
Your confusing the terms heat and energy...and embarrassing yourself. I would suggest actually reading up on the various big bang theories.
Thats all for now....*patiently waits for James R's response"
Yorda,
Science in general is all about cause and effect. The aim of science is to recognise regularities in nature. If X always happens before Y, then it is usually fair to assume that X causes Y, or perhaps that Z causes both X and Y. You seem to be saying that physicists can't identify causes. I say that they do that all the time.
Why did the blue billiard ball go into the corner pocket? Because the cue ball it it in such a way as to make it do that. There's a very simple cause-and-effect example which is easily explainable in terms of physical laws. ALL of physics, essentially, is like this, though sometimes the causes are more elusive.
This is all very well, but you can't actually justify any of it. It's all just a nice theory of yours. Is everything "mind", or are some things outside "mind"? Who knows? How could we possibly tell the difference? I can't think of any way. Can you?
Why, do you suppose, that physics is so phenomenally successful in allowing us to predict and control the world around us? Just luck, or is there some other reason?
There are many types of energy. Roughly, energy is the ability to do useful work (the term "work" is also precisely defined in physics). Heat is a form of energy. Energy is not "made of" anything. It is a property that systems have. Think of it as being like "red". What is "red" made of? Nothing. Some things are red. Others are not. Some systems have more energy than others, or energy in different forms.
So, what, in your opinion, is the "right interpretation" that physicists have been missing all these years? And can you give an example of how your interpretation lets us make progress beyond what we already know?
Science in general is all about cause and effect. The aim of science is to recognise regularities in nature. If X always happens before Y, then it is usually fair to assume that X causes Y, or perhaps that Z causes both X and Y. You seem to be saying that physicists can't identify causes. I say that they do that all the time.
Why did the blue billiard ball go into the corner pocket? Because the cue ball it it in such a way as to make it do that. There's a very simple cause-and-effect example which is easily explainable in terms of physical laws. ALL of physics, essentially, is like this, though sometimes the causes are more elusive.
This is all very well, but you can't actually justify any of it. It's all just a nice theory of yours. Is everything "mind", or are some things outside "mind"? Who knows? How could we possibly tell the difference? I can't think of any way. Can you?
Why, do you suppose, that physics is so phenomenally successful in allowing us to predict and control the world around us? Just luck, or is there some other reason?
There are many types of energy. Roughly, energy is the ability to do useful work (the term "work" is also precisely defined in physics). Heat is a form of energy. Energy is not "made of" anything. It is a property that systems have. Think of it as being like "red". What is "red" made of? Nothing. Some things are red. Others are not. Some systems have more energy than others, or energy in different forms.
So, what, in your opinion, is the "right interpretation" that physicists have been missing all these years? And can you give an example of how your interpretation lets us make progress beyond what we already know?
Let me try explaining away your viewpoint.... We have five senses and all we will ever know about the universe will be determined from these senses. Its useless to try to figure out philisopically wheter reality 'exists' outside our mind or independent of our mind.... why? Because it doesnt matter. Everything we do is for our betterment or our world around us... its all relative. It does not matter if the universe exists independently or inside our minds, everything we know and will ever know will stay the same. Get my drift?
And btw, everything James R has said is correct and you would do well to read up on the subject and learn about the basics of physics before posting theories on fundamental facts that you dont believe exist.
Later
Tristan
(Correct me if im wrong james, but isnt heat (i.e. temperature) the measure of the random kinetic movement of particles?)
Another science is necessary? Huh? Psssst, guess what? If a new science needs to be created, it will still be here in our little reality, thus confined by the same boundries you describe physics is combined by. Therefore, useless just as you claim.
Circular Reasoning anyone?
T
UnderWhelmed said:
I study neither philosophy or physics, but I understand this. When you lift your arm, where is the cause and where is the effect? A cause is not something that happens one time, in the past, once and for all... the cause is constant, and the cause is the mind. The mind gives atoms its infinite source of power.
...
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Yorda said:
I read this and then I was like
, and then :bugeye: and finally I am not even going to give you the satifaction of a real response...
Lol! When you lift your arm, where is the cause and where is the effect?
Cause: Electrical impulse Via nerves
Effect: Muscles flex and move and Arm raises.
The mind gives atoms its infinte source of power? Does that make even the least bit of concievable sense? Seriously?
Effect: A could of smelly gas invades my personal space.
According to you, my dog shitting happens continunously and into eternity? My dog is always shitting? And he shitted because I thought he needed to?
Cause: Electrical impulse Via nerves
Effect: Muscles flex and move and Arm raises.
The mind gives atoms its infinte source of power? Does that make even the least bit of concievable sense? Seriously?
Cause: My dog pooped
Effect: A could of smelly gas invades my personal space.
According to you, my dog shitting happens continunously and into eternity? My dog is always shitting? And he shitted because I thought he needed to?
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Someone should hook your mind up to a generator and do away with fossil fuels
James R said:
Can an effect be the cause of another effect? As a rule,we tend to think so, but this is a mistake. Every sequential effect is the result of a cause which is THE GOAL. The cause is a PRESENT NECESSITY, producing effects in order to be realized. Only a goal is a source of energy, able to create something. Nothing other than a goal is able to provide the universe with energy to create something. There is no power at all in the past. It cannot produce anything. It does not exist. The PRESENT does exist, and the present is the Necessity of the goal. The cause is always present, and it is only by studying the present that you can grasp the cause.
Just ask yourself the question: can you be conscious of something outside your consciousness (mind) ? The answer is NO. Thus everything is inside mind. Physicists will realize this later.
Quantum physics lies at the mid-point of old physics and metaphysics, the science of the future. Quantum Physics is, and shall remain, an instrumental theory, essentially useful for technical application, but as incapable as Classical Physics of explaining the origin of the universe.
We never use Mathematics. It is only necessary for technical achievements, not for comprehension. Everything here is concrete and full of life. Mathematics, as taught in Universities, is part of the Universe. It is a consequence of Physics. So it cannot explain the Universe and is of no use to us since our purpose is to show the reality "beyond", or "before" the physical universe.
Heat is made of "nothing"? But light is made of photons? Why does light have to be made of something, but not heat? Light doesn't have mass, and no one has ever seen a photon. A photon is just a vibration moving through space: it is nothing. But so is matter, since it is also a type of energy.
Nothing is physical.
Most of Science's major problems go beyond the inherent limitations of Science's framework. These problems stem from the obviousness that observation contains the observed object.
Hence, no experiment can be verified. In fact, both the hypothesis and the verification are inside mind. Although they fear this, physicists are bound to admit that idealism is the only consistent way to approach Reality.
In fact, idealism is today more scientific than physicalism. Since the beginning of this century, the Fathers of Quantum Physics knew that. Popper's epistemology is no longer scientific, since it has been proved that the reality of things, although true, cannot be falsified, and so is beyond the field of Physics... although Physics is confronted with this reality when seeking the inner components of particles.
Physicists have made many mistakes throughout the years, from which many of them remain until today. Physicists don't know what energy is, or what a field is. They don't know that all particles are infact two-pole ones. They don't know why electrons stay on their orbits.
But for us, the origin of the universal energy is no longer a mystery. We have also unified all the 4 fundamental forces into one magnetic energy. THE INTEGRAL UNITARY THEORY that physicists are searching for, is well known by many researchers. The origin of space, time and mind are explained, and the universe can now with certainty be scientifically explained from ABSOLUTE NOTHINGNESS.
But what do scientists think of our metaphysical theories?
Scientists think nothing about them. They ignore them. They will ignore them as long as they fail to admit certain fundamental errors in Physics. Fortunately, in the United States, some physicists are prepared to admit that everything is definitely spiritual. Let Metaphysics explain; that is its job. Physics' job is to describe and to copy mechanisms. Metaphysics' job is to understand why.
The need to understand is not dead. This is why it is necessary to extend science to observation itself, to mind. But still remaining scientific.
Tristan said:
Impulses traveling via nerves "causes" your hand move, but what makes the impulses move?
The origin is not the cause, not even the triggering factor is the cause. Both origins and triggering factors take place in the visible world, in the memory of things, in the "past". But not the cause. The cause of something cannot take place in the past.
EVERYTHING PAST IS AN EFFECT, AND AN EFFECT IS A CREATION OF THE CAUSE. When you observe something, it does not exist: it is past, hence it is created. You can only see what is past, created. Quantum physicists could have guessed that if they tried to observe the present reality of particles, they would be bound to banish the idea of "particle".
And in Astrophysics, since physicists observe only the illusion of motion in time, unable to observe the "MIND"'s present reality creating these things, they observe only effects, denying causes. For them, effects are causes and causes are effects.
Nobody could ever explain mind out of matter, out of neurons etc. (because mind is neither inside matter nor inside neurons. Neurons and matter ARE INSIDE MIND; are sensations). Everything is mental.... If I feel or observe something, it obviously means that it is INSIDE my mind. If it is outside my mind, I can't have any consciousness of it.
Since everything takes place inside THE consciousness, the right science for reality is not Physics but a science of consciousness. The question of the universe is no longer a physical one ("where, when and why it exploded?").
We can by no means prove anything "material" ("external" reality) but we can be sure of mind. So, be scientific. Reject hypotheses. Reject matter as such.
...
Most definitely... the things we are discovering now, have been known for certain people, thousands of years ago... they were the sons great people, but the people of today are too proud. They always think they are right. They always want to defend themselves, rejecting their infinity.
It's called an action potential and is pretty well understood. When a neuron is stimulated, ion channels open in the membrane and sodium from the extracellular medium rush into the cell because of the differences in charge. As this happens, the interior of the cell changes from a negative voltage to a positive voltage. This happens locally, but is propagated along the neural fiber because the voltage triggers voltage gated ion channels further down the fiber to open up and so on and so on.
Now. You'll need to ask why the sodium ions act as they do. Why the ion channels act the way they do. And so on. And you'll find yourself in the world of molecular biology. And then deeper and deeper. You can always go deeper, it's true. And I think that this is your point, but regardless, you can go farther with testable science.
Or you can just make up stories and keep your fingers crossed.
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Can you provide more information on the "THE INTEGRAL UNITARY THEORY "...i am sure many other people would be interested in reading up on it. Perhaps you have website or book.
I am writing a response to the two posts that you just wrote. I am sure others are as well.
I am writing a response to the two posts that you just wrote. I am sure others are as well.
UnderWhelmed
Registered Senior Member
Yorda said:
What goal are you talking about? Your going to have to expand on that in order to make any sense.
Yorda said:
This should be in the philosophy forum...the greatest minds of the last 3000 years have debated this very subject. It cannot be proved either way.
Yorda said:
Yorda said:
I wonder if I took a brick and smashed in on your face if you would still be saying that?
Since you clearly don't want to use science to prove your claims, would you mind proving it logically? Otherwise your just an attention whore.
I think this is where he is getting most of his "ideas"
- Status