Guest Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 To say that black holes are destructive and sinister is emotional, not rational. Black holes may offer worm hole short cuts to other parts of the universe (or other universes) or time travel to the past. Ultimately black holes may provide an escape route from the heat death of the universe. Black holes are certainly not sinister to me. Your assessment of black holes is very interesting to me. You recognize that they are destructive while at the same time you see them as a means for transportation and even salvation after all else is destroyed. Your view is very similar to ancient religous views. Seeing destruction and creation in the same 'object' is a marker of more advanced (but very old) religous systems. Have you heard of the Nataraj ? It is an aspect of Shiva engaging in the dance of destruction and creation. I realize you were making the point that black holes are not considered sinister by scientists. But likewise, shiva is not considered sinister by hindus. The mere fact that there are similarities between religous conceptions of deities and scientific conceptions of black holes does not disprove the existence of black holes. It is certainly possible black holes exist. But the similarities should not be dismissed out of hand by some blind adherence to logic which we 'know' is infallible because we say so. The argument that scientists have tested and observed the data and the theories does not eliminate the doubt in my mind that the subconscious is at work. No one observes a black hole. Only a set of data. The data are interpreted. And its in the interpretation that the primitive part of the brain gets its toe in the door. Astronomers believed in black holes because the general theory of relativity predicted them. And sure enough the first black hole was detected by its X-ray emissions in the 1970's. Correction. In the 1970s a black hole was not detected. X-ray emmissions were detected. Scientists 'interpreted' the data and postulated a destructive/creative black hole that has the power to annihilate whole star systems while at the same time holding together an entire galaxy which could not exist without it. The interpretation in of itself is a red flag to anyone who engages in self reflection that the subconscious may be at work. 6000 years ago man was looking at his environment and explaining the universe with the same dual concepts as astronomers today. If you were to ask the dalai lama about this black hole business, he might suggest that the subconscious is projecting onto the raw data, and we are left with nothing but our own self created illusions to look at. Our subconscious can be overridden by our rational conscious minds that seek to understand the world. Yes I agree with this. We just need to be sure to recognize when the subconscious is at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Your assessment of black holes is very interesting to me. You recognize that they are destructive while at the same time you see them as a means for transportation and even salvation after all else is destroyed. I said that black holes "may" be used for transportation or time travel. This assumes one of the latest theories is correct and that a civilization is extremely advanced. Your view is very similar to ancient religous views. Seeing destruction and creation in the same 'object' is a marker of more advanced (but very old) religous systems. I don't dispute that there are similarities between religious views and rational views. If you are looking for parrallels between religious doctrine and scientific theories, you might be interested in The Tao of Physics Its Buddhism / Taoism and the similarities to the Standard Model of physics. I realize you were making the point that black holes are not considered sinister by scientists. I was just speaking for myself. The argument that scientists have tested and observed the data and the theories does not eliminate the doubt in my mind that the subconscious is at work. Most people are capable of thinking rationally at times. When we are doing so we are overruling the influence of the primitive part of the mind (the id). Scientific theories are a triumph of reason over the subconscious. Correction. In the 1970s a black hole was not detected. X-ray emmissions were detected. Scientists 'interpreted' the data and postulated a destructive/creative black hole that has the power to annihilate whole star systems while at the same time holding together an entire galaxy which could not exist without it. The interpretation in of itself is a red flag to anyone who engages in self reflection that the subconscious may be at work. No such postulate or interpretation was made. In the '70s the detection of X-rays from Cygnus X1 demanded an explanation. A black hole was the only thing that met the requirement of being invisible and a strong source of X-rays. The black hole at the center of the galaxy (in Centaurus A) was detected by gravitational lensing. Both of these discoveries were further confirmation of the predictions of the general theory of relativity. Nothing to do with our subconscious being at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pom_Jao_Choo Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 I am happy that you have you have a faith based rationale for these issues that trouble you. That this faith can calm your troubles, and offer you strength and understanding is good. All the great religions of the world do mankind a service in spite of their errors. They set many minds at peace, who feel troubled by such overwhelming issues. I can only ask that aside from your faith you keep in mind that the entire civilization of which you are a product of has evolved from/in the influences of the great religions. Which for many years controlled/limited/influenced civilization to enormous extents. Our Political, educational, philosophical.... really every area of study was for "thousands" of years, controlled , limited, influenced, and directed for by the powers of the great religions. We are all products of civilizations previously in the hands of these few. All our institutions of thought have descended from predecessors often edited or controlled by clergy. It has been only 200 years that free thinking men have been allowed to rationalize outside of the church such things as lightning outside of angry gods or electricity as something tangible. We should give these men who have brought us so much understanding past the wheel and lever a little more time to explain themselves. If such things make you feel perplexed or insecure. Take safe harbor in your faith (or pint ) and feel no shame. It has served mankind well for millennium. It is not for every mind to explore the deepest mysteries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lembeh Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 >To be a theory it has to make predictions that are testable Science in a nutshell. Well put. The difference between "science" and "religion" or "belief" is that science creates a framework which predicts the outcome of as yet unobserved events - and then *tests* that prediction. Without the testing, its not science. It may take a lifetime (or several) to adequately test the prediction. If the "outcome" of the test does not fit the model - the model is scrapped, or redesigned to account for the observed event. A key component is that the new model must fit all the previous data, and so models are increasingly "all encompassing" to account for all the earlier observations. The day that (any) religion makes a *testable* hypothesis on the basis of a "supreme being" is the day that rational people may start listen to them. Until then, arguements that mix "science" and "religion" are just a waste of time and space. -j- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 -j-, based upon the above, you will enjoy this very old joke (so old you have probably forgotten it): +++++++ From an anonymous "Uni chem test" Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic or endothermic? Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle?s Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following: [color:"blue"]First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let?s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not believe in more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle?s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added. This gives two possibilities: 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose. 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over. So which is it? If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ?it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct?.leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ?Oh my God.?[/color] A+ +++++++++ Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 SD, excellent scientific analysis! :: Karl Marx was IMO just correct about 2 things - he was the first that did understand that a capitalistic (market) system always will have fluctuations in economy - "Religion is the opium of the people" Religion has always been used by those in power as a tool to keep the poor people quiet and peaceful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 arguements that mix "science" and "religion" are just a waste of time and space. Lets see... Astonomers say they possess the one true knowledge of the genesis. The holy rollers of the world say THEY possess the one true knowledge of the genesis. Physicists say they know there is a unified theory out there that will provide a comprehensive explanation of the universe. The holy rollers say there is a unified theory that will provide a comprehensive explanation of the universe and we have it already. Scientists will denigrate any belief system that does not recognize the primacy of their own system, calling the challengers ignorant, stupid and dangerous. Holy rollers will denigrate any belief system that does not recognize the primacy of their own system, calling the challengers ignorant, stupid and dangerous. Scientists say their system is the only means to find the truth. Holy rollers say their system is the only means to find the truth. Yep. Since there is nothing similar between religion and science, we would not want to get the two mixed up. And about which system is the only means to find truth. People who believe science to be the means to discover ultimate truth are attributing powers to the rational intellect that it does not possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 Take safe harbor in your faith (or pint ) and feel no shame. It has served mankind well for millennium. I assume your comment was directed at those who believe "the universe went through extremely rapid expansion in the moments after the big bang, growing from the size of a marble to a volume larger than all of observable space in less than a trillion-trillionth of a second." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 "Religion is the opium of the people" Religion has always been used by those in power as a tool to keep the poor people quiet and peaceful. IMO religion has been replaced. Now its the sports media industry that is the opiate of the people :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elef Posted March 22, 2006 Report Share Posted March 22, 2006 People who believe science to be the means to discover ultimate truth are attributing powers to the rational intellect that it does not possess. So it's because people are irrational and stupid that they believe in religion? :: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.